The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-24 00:00:00

late was entitled to the thanks of every friend of religion and humanity. Still, he must say , that in his diocese the destitu tion of the poor in workhouses was not so great as the Right Rev. Prelate had roved it to be in other parts of the country. Lord CAMOYS said that he had always supported the principle of allowing a chaplain to every workhouse ; but he thought that it might appear a hardship upon the Dissenters that they should be obliged to pay the salary of a clergyman whose services would be devoted to one particular class. Now, as the clergy of the several parishes in a union were relieved from the most unpleasant part of their duty, by the removal of the paupers to the anion-house, he thought it would not be un fair for them to contribute to the salary of the chaplain. Toe Bishop of EXETER rose to express his thanks to the Noble Baron ( Wharncliffe), and to the Government for he declaration that they would introduce such a clause. Lord WHARNCLIFFE had not said anything of the sort.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The Bishop of EXETER had understood the Noble Lord to say so ; but, atall events, it was much to know that the Noble Lord would support such a clause. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would not withdraw his motion, but would allow it to be negatived. The motion was then negatived without a division, and the House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 23. The SnaAxEs. took the chair at Four o'Clock. The following Bills were read a second time and ordered to be committed :—The Ribble Navigation, the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway, the Ramsay Inclosine, the Bury (Hunting don) Inclosure, and the Liverpool New Gas and Coke Bills. NEWBURY AND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL moved the second reading of this Bill. Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE said he should oppose the second reading of this Bill, unless he had a clear understanding from the Hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Russell) that no opposition wouldbe offered to the second reading of another Bill, to which the present one was closely allied. Two competing lines of railway had been proposed, one by the South Western Railway Company, from Basingstoke to Newbury ; and the Other by the Great Western Railway Company, from Hunger ford to Newbury. The former Bill he ( Sir William Heath cote) would introduce in a few days. He thought, there fore, that it would be well to postpone the second reading of the present Bill for a fortnight, in order that both Bills might be read together and afterwards be referred to the same Committee. If the Hon. Member for Reading would undertake not to oppose the second reading of the Bill, for the Branch Railway from Basingstoke to Newbury, he (Sir W. Heathcote) would not offer any opposition to the present Bill, but unless the Hon. Member gave this pledge, he should move that the second reading of the Bill be postponed for a fort- Mr. R. PALMER hoped that the lion. Member for Read ing would agree to the proposition of the Hon. Baronet. He should have a petition to present against this line from nine tenths of the landholders through whose property the Newbury and Basingstoke line would run. He had, however, no wish to oppose the second reading, if the two Bills were permitted to go together before the Committee. Mr. C. RUSSELL would not consent to any delay. The Hon. Gentleman had said they would sustain no disadvan tage by delay—neither would they gain any great advantage by having the Bill now read a second time. All the Stand ing Orders had been complied with. The Bill would be re ferred to the Committee of Selection, and he should wish at once to take the judgment of the House. He thought he was not asking too much, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time. Mr. FRANCIS BAFtING had no doubt but that the Right Hon. Baronet would withdraw his opposition to the second reading of the 13111, if the Hon. Member for Reading would give tee House his assurance that the second reading of the for the competing line should not be opposed, but that butt Bills should be referred to the Committee at the same time.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Reading, however, had not consented to give any such assurance. He believed that the inhabitants of the part of the county with which he was connected were much opposed to the present Bill, but he desired nothing unfair. He only wished that both Bills should be referred to the same Committee, and unless the Hon. Member for Reading gave some assurance that the second reading of the other Bill should not be opposed, he should certainly vote for the post ponement of the second reading of this Bill. He should like very much to hear the sentiments of the Right Hon. Gentle man at the head of the Board of Trade upon this subject. Mr. GLADSTONE said he regretted that his Hon. Friend the Member for Reading, who was the Chairman of one of the great railways, seemed to be disinclined to a postponement of this Bill.—(Hear ' hear.) He thought it would be much better if these two Bills were to be brought before the House sit the same time.—( Hear, hear.) He agreed with his Hon. Priend that it would be most unfair if the consideration of this Bill were to be postponed for any very long time, because he was aware of the great advantages to be &dyed by the public from diligence and celerity, but there Mould be no suspicion of a want of either on the part of the promoters of these Bills ,• but still he thought their postpone.- anent for a fortnight would do no harm.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. AGLIONBY said one of these Bills was before a Com mittee, of which ho was a member, and he thought that before the next meeting of the House the Committee would be pre pared with its Report. Mr. C. RUSSELL said that on behalf of himself and of the Company to which he had the honour to belong, he begged to say that he had no desire to act counter to the wishes of the Mouse, and he should consequently accede to the required postponement. The second reading of the Bill was then postponed for a fortnight, REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES—SUPPLY. Mr. FIELDEN presented three petitions from Manchester, Liverpool, and Oldham—the last bearing 3,200 signatures— praying that the House would not vote the estimates for the army and navy until the grievances of the people were in quired into and redressed. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented a petition to the same effect from Preston. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition, signed by Andrew Cross, chairman of a public meeting of the inhabitants of Taunton, confplaining of the unjust and extra vagant legislative, and oppressive, and partial monopolies, civil and ecclesiastical ; and they prayed the House not to vote the supplies necessary to support the present enormous military force till these causes of complaint were redressed. Also, peti tions from Creditors, in the county of Devon, and from Whit church, in Hampshire, to the same effect. NEW ZEALAND. _ Mr. B. BALDWIN presented a petition from New Zealand, stating that they paid 30,0001. a-year for protection, and yet that sufficient protection was not afforded them. They, therefore, prayed for sufficient protection, and also for an in quiry into the land titles. SURPLUS REVENUE. Mr. WALLACE gave notice that instead of moving the re solution of which he had given notice, that the surplus revenue be 'applied to the redaction of those taxes which bear most heavily on the working classes, he should, believing it to be snore consistent and Parliamentary, move an address to the Crown for the same purpose. ASSESSED TAXES. Captain PECHELL gave notice that, on Thursday next, he should call the attention of the House to the system of punishing persons who were defaulters in the assessed taxes. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. Sir J. GRAHAM said it would ho in the recollection of the House that when he introduced his Poor-law Amendment Bill, he did so at a moment's notice, the House having met on the Saturday, is consequence of its having counted out the previous evening. He took advantage of an opportunity he did not anticipate having, and explained the provisions of the Bill very briefly, and without the assistance of any note or document. On that occasion the lion. and Gallant Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell) put a question to him which he answered at the moment, and he had since found out that that answer was not a correct one. He (Sir James Graham) had stated that there was no provision is the Bill authorising interference with the Gilbert unions. He was incorrect in stating this, and he apo logised to the Hon. and Gallant Member, and to the House for the mistake. There was one clause in the Bill, having reference to local Acts, the object of which he should be prepared to discuss on a future occasion. He would propose the second reading now, and take the dis cussion on the motion fur going into Committee. But if this course should be objected to, considering the important debate which stood on the Order of the Day, he would feel it his duty to postpone the second reading of the Bill till a future day. if there was no opposition, however, to the course which he pro posed, be would move that the Order of the Day be then read. Mr. P. BORTHWICK, for one, had no objection to the Right Hon. Baronet reading the Bill a second time, provided he gave an understanding that there would be an opportunity of discussing, not only the amendments preposed in the Bill itself, but also the whole principle of the Hear. ) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said such opportunity would be afforded on the motion for going into Committee. Capt. PECHELL said the 56th clause iaconnexion with the 17th clause in this Bill,had created considerable alarm amongst the constituency he represented,for they looked with great jealousy at any attempt at interference with the powers of their boards of guardians, or any interference with their affairs. lie hoped the Right Hon. any would not persist in inter fering with the rights of those who had conducted the affairs of the poor with satisfaction both to themselves and to the rate-payers. Colonel SIBTHORP would not oppose the second reading of the Bill ; but he should at a subsequent stage take: the sense of the House as to the propriety of the total annihilation of the Commissioners.—(Cheers and laughter. ) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE exonerated the Right Hon. Baronet from all blame for introducing the Bill on a Saturday. It was by the desire of himself (Mr. T. Duncombe) and other Hon. Members, that the Right Hon. Baronet had so introduced his Bill. He should not oppose the second reading, although he thoughtit capable of amendment. Those amendments, however, might be made in Committee. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet when it was his intention to move for a Com mittee to inquire into the operation of the Gilbert unions? Sir J. GRAHAM said, it had been his intention to move for the appointment of the Committee before Easter: He would give the Hon. Gentleman due notice of his intention to move for the Committee, so that the parties concerned might have time for preparation. He should propose that the Bill be committed on Monday fortnight. After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday fortnight. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Sir G. CLERK moved that the House, at its risipg, do ad journ till Monday.—Agreed to. Sir R. PEEL moved, in conformity with the notice which he had given last night, that Mr. M. Blake be substituted in the room of the Hon. Member for Montrose as a Member of the Gaming Committee. He did so because the Ho nourable Gentleman had voluntarily retired from the Com mittee, and because he said he had no great knowledge of the turf, and had never made a bet.—(Laughter. )—Agreed to. yOSTAGE PAPERS. Mr. WALLACE wished to know from the Hon. Gentle• man, the Secretary for the Treasury, w h en t h e f ree postage papers would be issued ? Sir GEORGE CLERK said, that directions had been given to have a certain number of half-sheets prepared, as an experiment, which would be ready in a few daysfordeli- deli very. Tney would be sold to the public at th e same price as the present envelopes, namely at two shilli ng and three pence a quire, and lid. each se erste sheet of ADJOURNED DEBATE.—IRELAND. paper. The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate having been read, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he rose to discharge a duty which, be believed, that House and the country expected from him, in consequence of what had occurred in the course of this debate. He had,been so often called upon, challenged, and alluded to, that if he had any reluctance, which he had not, he could not possibly have declined joining in the discussion, and expressing his views and sentiments on the subject that had been before the House. He was pre pared to have performed this duty at an earlier period of the debate, and to have followed the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester, and to have commented on the observations he made. But he was sure the House would ex cuse him for saying, that the moment he heard that Hon. an , d , Learned Gentleman drop from his lips the words , " his honour, in referring to his Right Honourable and Learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, he at once thought it would not become him (the Attorney-Ge neral) to step in between any Hon. Gentleman and the vindi cation of his personal honour. He gave way, therefore, to TR the Attorney-General for Ireland. In what manner that Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman discharged the duty imposed on him in vindicating that honour, and of the able and admirable way in which he had discharged that duty, it would scarcely become him to speak. Tho House had already judged, and decided on that point ; he might be permitted to say also that a more able speech, delivered in a more gentlemanly tone, and with more manly bearing, he had never heard.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He would at once express to the Hon. and Learned Member for Dungarvon his entire sa tisfaction at the explanation he had given of what took place at a trial in the county of Tipperary, some fourteen or fifteen years ago, when as many as thirty-six jurors were set aside on the part of the Crown. He was thoroughly convinced that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was only actuated by a desire correctly to discharge his duty and ensure the satisfactory administration of justice. Having so far discharged a debt of justice to the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, perhaps the House would allow him to set himself right on a point alluded to by the Right Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester, as to the conduct that was pursued on the part of the Crown in a case recently before the Exchequer, where he, Es Attorney-General, consented that the trial should be sus pended, the jury discharged, and the defendant permitted to have an opportunity of stating his case on another occasion. He thought it right shortly to state the circumstances con nected with that case, that no mistake might be made as to the grounds on which he then acted. Before that trial it had been the invariable practice in the departments of the Customs and Excise to fix the precise day on which the trial was to come on. The able and learned person whose assistance he had in that department, for a reason . svhich satisfied him at the time, had, instead of keeping to the day fixed, which was the 24th August, extended it for four months, namely to the 24th of December. That was an entire departure from the ordinary course, and one which he (the Attorney-General) greatly discountenanced. When the change was made he told the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester he was as conscious as himself of the practice of the office. When the trial came on he had not the slightest idea the alteration in the time appointed for the trial would have been made a cause of objection. It was not until the case for the prosecution had closed, and counsel had risen to address the jury for the defence, that he was aware a grand grievance was to be made of this alteration of the day fixed for the trial. The Solicitor to the Excise was put into the box, and admitted it had been the invariable practice of the department to insert in the notice the real day fixed for the trial, and that a delay of four months had taken place. That there might be no ground fur com plaint, he interrupted the counsel for the defence, and said he would agree to have the jury discharged, and another day, Of which the customary notice should be given, appointed for the trial. This was done with the consent of the other side and the sanction of the Court. The course he (the Attorney-General) adopted was advantageous to the defendant and honourable to the Crown. Approbation had been expressed with reference to the course of proceed ing at Lancaster, at Cardiff, and at Carmarthen ; and he should presently have occasion to call the attention of the House to the circumstances that occurred with reference to each of those transactions. The favourable notice the House had been pleased to take of his conduct would undoubtedly animate him in the faithful discharge of his duty. He would be wanting in fairness to his Right Hon. Friend at the head of the Government if he did not state one of the principal encouragements he had received in the course of his public career to adopt that course which had been fa vourably noticed by the House. He hoped it would not be considered out of season if he mentioned very shortly what had oc curred when he was first appointed Attorney-General in 1834. Very shortly after his appointment, some di& culties arose, and he had reason to consult his Right Hon. Friend, now again at the head of Treasury. His Right Honourable Friend was kind enough to give him his advice, and in doing so, he said, " You need never come to me again for advice. The respon sibility is yours, and let me give you this general direction,— coivider well what you are about—make yourself master of the subject—don't decide in a hurry—ascertain what is your duty with reference to the public interest, and when you have ascertained it, look neither to the right nor to the left—look to the interest of the Crown on the one hand, and the public on the other ; and when you have so ascertained your duty, then discharge it. When I differ from you, I will do justice to your motives. This is the only advice I wish to give you, and having given you that advice I leave you to the discharge of your duty." That was the only advice he had received, and it was advice worthy of the first Minister of the Crown to give to the first law officer of the Crown. It gave him confidence in the course which he had pursued, because it enabled him not merely to look to the letter of the law — not merely to read the statutes, or a digest of the common law ; but to administer the law in such a manner as to make it in accordance with sound public opinion and in unison with the feelings and sympathies of the great body of the community.—(Cheers.) It appeared to him that the present discussion was forcibly illustrative of the danger which must arise from bringing subjects of this nature under discussion while proceedings were pending.—( Hear. ) He perfectly admitted the right of the House to discuss this subject, and would admit that circumstances might occur which might render it necessary for the House to interfere at once ; but admitting the right of the House, he contended that the exercise of that right was in general calculated to interfere with the purity of the administration of justice. To-day their discussions might be raised to protect a person who was supposed to be unjustly accused—(Cheers)—to -morrow to immolate a victim to popular prejudice.—(Cheers.) He, therefore, should have desired that the House had abstained from discuss ing matters which were still pending, and which must and would be brought under discussion elsewhere.—( Hear. ) He would discuss only so much as he was compelled to enter upon, and he would endeavour, in so doing, to avoid all acri monious allusions and topics. The debate, as far as it had gone, was very much confined to members of the legal pro fession, and to legal topics; but why the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant Murphy), and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, had so studiously avoided those topics, and so much repudiated the profession to which they both belonged, he did not know. He recollected going with the Right Hon. Gentleman on the Northern Cir cuit and holding briefs with him ; he possessed too powerful a mind not to master all the details of the law if he applied it to them, and he was too honest a man not to practise in the profession if he had not done so. He would therefore still continue to call him his Right Hon. and Learned Friend.— (A laugh.) He was selected as a lawyer for office, and was employed in India in the construction of a code, and he was succeeded by Mr. Amos, a gentleman of the highest attainments in Westminster Hall. He did not know whether his Non. and Learned Friend had mixed tip bad law with worse politics, and therefore repudiated the profes sion, but having himself attained the highest pro-. , fessional honour, he was not content to lose this decks et tutanten of the profession.—(Hear, hear.) He would go after him, and reclaim him, and try and bring him back again to the fold. He had heard the speech of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman with the greatest pleasure. He heard his splendid oration with the greatest delight—it was the outpouring of a mind most richly stored with varied informa.. tion—of a mind full of intellectual wealth, intermingled with that, similes drawn from ancient and modern literature and illustrations from every part of the world, and from all times and places. He had listened to that speech till he was almost lost in admiration—it was impossible not to listen to his glowing language—his magnificent periods—his powerful and shining points, without feeling the highest pleasure and g ratification. But it was rather the oration of an author, a poet, or an orator than of a great statesman. He had looked in vain from the beginning to the end of that speech for something practical. The Right Hon. Gentleman complained of every body and of everything, but he had suffered his sympathy for Ireland to expend itself in barren generalities. There was nothing like a practical application to the present subject. The Right Ho nourable Gentleman complained of the construction of the jury and said that they ought to be contented with a common jury. This was repeated by the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester and the Hon. Member for Dungarvon. Now, he begged to say, this had never before been suggested by any human being. The counsel for the traversers, fifteen in number, had never even hinted at such an expedient.— ( Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he did not feel it his duty to speculate on what would or might to have been the reception of • such a proposition, if it had been made. The suggestion ought to have been made when it could have been acted upon it should not have been reserved for that debate. Now, with respect to the question of a special or a common jury—though he was not versed in the details of Irish proceedings—he begged to say that in this country he would no more have thought of trying such a case by a common jury than ho would have thought of trying a case of high treason at the sessions. He was not aware of a single instance in which a trial of this kind had taken place by a common jury ; and if he (the Attorney-General) representing the Crown, had on any occasion consented to depart from the general practice, he would have been betraying the duty which he owed to the Crown, without feeling at all certain that he either added to the security or the satisfaction of the subject.—( Hear.) In this case, the law officers of the Crown were consulted as to the practice, and they gave an unhesitating opinion that the trial ought to be by a special jury, and they did so for this reason, that in the case of a special jury, the forty-eight names were indifferently taken from the centre panel. In the heat of argument, the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of the jury as being selected. ‘Vhy, there were none of them selected. The forty-eight names were taken out of the list by ballot. The Right Hon. Gentleman ought not to have spoken of the jurymen as selected from the panel, for they were all taken by ballot from the list, and the power of objection was given. Forty-eight names were taken by ballot from the list; they were reduced to twenty-four, by each side striking off twelve ; twelve more were to be taken off by a further ballot, and the twelve remaining were to form the jury. This method, he contended, was free from reproach, free from difficulty, and satisfactory to the public. It was preferable to allowing the Crown the power of setting aside a common juror. The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester himself acknowledged that this practice would have such odium attached to it, that the Crown would not exercise it. This mode was established for the purpose of avoiding that; it was secure, and it was impartial, because it placed the Crown and the tra versers on the same footing. The Hon. and Learned Gentle tleman (Mr. Sheil) had said that " the lottery" had not turned out so favourably for the traversers as it might have done. But that formed ne ground of accusation against the public officer. —( Hear, hear.) One reason why he entered so deeply into these matters was, that he was himself at Carmarthen placed precisely in the same situation. He went down to Carmarthen to the trials. There wa a small population and a limited jury list. He was sorry to have to enter into these details publication, but he was compelled to d publicly,- for they were veryo When nabtlhee jury list w a a n s d lai h d e bef w or a e s hi o ns re r ib f l ound io rly seventy . -two names upon it, persona on that a very ol e the juri , list consi derable number of those i could not be trusted ; that and oerti a it it er u L a wf l re y .re had taken part in those riots and outbreaks, presented by their relations, their neighbours, In short, he found there were upwards of thirty il , ht na w m aa l e e s m h l s e, e e . could not call upon with safety. to do in that situation ? He said at once, he would commu nicate with his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), and he half shrunk from his duty ; but he did as he felt he ought to do—he did exactly as the Honourable and Learned Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil) had done in the case which he explained to the House last evening. He did set aside those he could not trust ; and he knew that if his conduct was questioned in that House he had but to explain his motives and his posi tion to obtain an approval of his conduct. He knew too the purity of his own motives, and he dared to do his duty. He had consulted the gentleman who was associated with him in his duty, and who was entirely opposed to him in politics. He men tioned this to show that he placed confidence in them. He felt that th e y were prepare d to do their duty as much as he took place of authority without was prepared t o d o hi s . T hey to ld h im. w h a t was the custom in oEunglaehndaileaengdetabebyeiteogld made him en nat both zio sides. He had ever gh an t t d o s exerciseupplrt to the f L u e ll a e r a n t e d e x t F e r e i t e Friends, pre rogative of the Crown, and obtain a jury from whom a firm but impartial verdict might be expected. Could the Attor ney-General for Ireland have dared to do as much ? It would be almost impossible that what had been done i n Tipperary by the Right Honourable and Learned Member for Dungarvon in 1829, could not have been dont in Dublin in 1844. Such a proceeding would have created an impression that the proceedings were unfair. In bis (the Attorney-General's) bumble opinion, it was the duty of the Irish Attorney-General to try the case by a special jury. It had been said that this was all pretence, and that the proceedings was unfair. Now. forty-eight names were drawn, and each party struck off twelve. The Crown had a right to strike off twelve, and the defendants had the same right; but he admitted, on the part of the Crown, that this was a right to be exercised with defer ence to public opinion. He admitted, that if they left no Roman Catholic upon the jury, that such a circumstance would tend to create a false impression, and a prejudice. He would also admit that, ca.terts paribus, he should be dis posed to leave Roman Catholics on the jury ; but how did the fact stand ? Was the case cceteris paribus ?—( Cheers.) He would go further. So much did he feel the importance of pay ing a deference to public opinion that he would even be dis posed to go beyond this.—( Hear, hear.) But how stood the case here? The first clamour was that every Roman Catholic had been struck off the list because he was a Roman Catholic. That had been given up. The Right Hon. and Learned Gen tleman had, with his usual candour, admitted last night that there was no blame as to eight. It appeared that there was some mistake as to the number of Roman Catholics originally . , on the parcel. There:were ten Roman Catholics on the panel ; that was one more than the Crown-Solicitor was aware of. Now, with regard to eight of these it appeared that no ques tion arose ; it was admitted that they were Repeaters, and that the law officer of the Crown would have been guilty of a dere liction of duty if he had not struck them off the list. There were two left, Hendrick and Dunne. With respect to Dunne, he held in his hand a paper dated May, 184'2, containing requisition signed by Dunne, for calling a repeal meeting. The Hon, and Learned Gentleman last night read resolutions agreed to at a meeting which had been attended by one of the jury, and had given that as a reason why that gentleman ought not to have been upon the jury. Now, at this meeting t e‘olutions had been agreed to, pledging all present to promote the sacred cause of repeal by all consti tutional means—(C beers and counter-cheers)—and to adopt those measures which had been suggested by the Liberator. — (Cheers.) Now, if that man had not been struck off the panel, the law officers,: in deference to a perverse and spurious libe rality, would hare forgotten the duty which they owed to the Crown.—( Cheers.) With regard to Hendrick, Mr. Kemmis had stated in his affidavit, that at the time he struck Hendrick off it was under the impression that he was a Protestant and a Conservative. He struck Hendrick off because he was obliged to strike off one, and he thought Hendrick the least eligible to be on the jury. There was another reason, which, as the Secre tary of State had not alluded to it, he would not state. It was not respecting Hendrick's personal character, and he would not further allude to it. Now, there were eight Roman Catholics struck off because they were members of the Repeal Association ; one, because he had signed a requisition for a repeal meeting ; and one, because it was necessary to strike off some person. His Hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, bad used an ex pression with regard to the common law, which struck him with the greatest surprise. He said that the liberties of the people of England were buried in their Courts of Common Law ; that in them their liberties had been swamped. He did not know whether his Hon. and Learned Friend was in Lis place, and he (lid not wish to use a syllable which would give him pain, but he could not help saying that if he drank of the spirit of the common law at those fountains at which their older lawyer s had drank, and tasted of it in the spirit of their ancestors, he would not have spoken of it as he had done. He hoped the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was not pre the subject of education he could not refrain from saying that he wished, as far as the means of this country would permit, it was diffused over every portion of the empire. Most of the Members of that House were no doubt acquainted with his own humble history, and it was impossible for any one who had benefited so much by the noble educational endowments of this country not to feel strongly in favour of its extension.—( Hear, hear.) He regretted there was so much agitation on the one hand and resistance on the other—so much hopeless despon dency among one portion of the people of Ireland—and so much alarm among the other. No doubt the question before the House was one of the greatest importance, and those who trifled with if were trifling with the interest of the mightiest empire that ever existed.—( Hear, hear. ) A misfortune to this country would be a calamity to all the world—the march of improvement would be arrested, the pro gress of knowledge impeded, and the advance of the Christian reliuion seriously retarded.—( Cheers. ) He responded to the feeling so eloquently expressed by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, that reconciliation, kindness, and love might be created ; and he would conclude by expressing a fervent hope that theiecoun sels adopted would be such as to secure peace and union, and thereby the happiness and prosperity of the united empire.— (Loud cheers. ) Mr. ROEBUCK complimented the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just sat down, on the mild and con ciliatory manner in which he had expressed himself. The Noble Lord had introduced a motion for inquiring into the state of Ire land, but for the last two or three nights the subject had been almost lost sight of, and the minor consideration had so much usurped the place of the greater that there was danger of the main object of the discussion being lost sight of altogether. It had been urged by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that the motion conveyed a censure upon Ministers, and that, as it was particularly desirable at this crisis that Go vernment should have the confidence of Parliament, it was not politic or prudent to moot the subject of inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him to be the duty of that House to be ready on every occasion to inquire into the conduct of Ministers, and not to have confidence in any Go have charity for others. He (Mr. Roebuck) believed that the feeling which had been created by such declarations as those to which ho had adverted, were precisely those which would con tinue in all their animosity as the bane of Ireland. But he wanted to know under these circumstances, what was to be done? They had employed force, and from that no good bad come. They had used the law, followed up its forms and powers with a vigorous pertinacity. The Learned Attorney-General for Ireland he did not then see in the House, and he was sorry for it; but he must say, that in spite of every explanation that had been offered, the conduct of the Government had not been cleared of the charges brought against it.—( Hear, hear.) In his conduct of the late prosecu tion, the Learned Attorney-General for Ireland showed himself a nisi prius advocate, instead of a responsible public servant endowed with a high trust, and whose whole demeanour should have been impassable and impartial.—( Cheers.) He should have said—l have no gratification in getting a convic tion against these men, but the administration of the law. I must maintain the law, but I will do so in such a way as to gain for it additional strength in the respect it shall command from all.—(Cheers.) From the beginning to the end he had utterly mistaken his position and his duty; he had allowed a sort of personal animosity to mingle with the conduct of the case—(Cries of "Hear, hear")—and all the while that he was complaining of efforts at delay made by the traversers he was himself guilty of the most unbecoming haste. —(Cheers.) lde now came to the question of the jury, and he was going distinctly to charge the Right Hon. the Recorder of Dublin with not having done his duty. The position of that gentleman was two-fold; first, that of a judge, and next, that of a ministerial officer. As a judge he had to adjudicate on each man's right to be on the jury. That was finished on the 24th November, and his ministerial functions then com menced. He and his officers had to make up the book, from which book the jury list had to be made up by the Sheriff. The Right Hon. Gentleman was a Privy Councillor, and was called to the meeting at the Castle, when others were excluded. He was in reality, then, one of the accusers, and he ought to have recollected how liable to suspicion a man so situated was—( Hear, hear)—and how necessary it was to keep himself and his office clear from imputation.—(Loud cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman left Dublin for a time, and in his absence an application was made for the adjudicated lists. Four of these adjudications were submitted to the traversers' attorneys, and in one of the four an error was found, and then his officers said no more ad judications could be given in his absence. That had been stated on affidavit and had never been denied. Now :one of his officers was a person named Magrath, and let the House re member the tone and the emphasis with which that name had been introduced to its notice by the Attorney-General forlreland. He insinuated that there was something wrong in the Learned Recorder's office, and he pointed pretty distinctly, and very significantly, to Mr. Magrath as the party implicated in it. Now came the horrible spiritwhieh threw its withering influence over all—the accursed spirit of bigotry.—( Hear, hear.) Be • cause Mr. Magrath was a Catholic, the Irish Attorney-General had insinuated that he had been utterly regardless of his duty, and was most probably the person who had abstracted the fif teen Catholic names from the panel which was to try the Catholic traversers..-(Hear, hear, and laughter.) So that the Irish Attorney-General would make it out to be thus—that they are so in love with grievances in Ireland, that they actually strike their own friends off the panel, in order to get a verdict against the traversers; and be able to come to the House of Commons with a complaint.—(Cheers and laughter.) But if Mr. Magrath had been guilty of this dereliction of duty, why was not the whole affair sifted —and why was he not instantly dismissed, and punished, as he ought to be, for filching the public property in order to serve his own private purposes ?—( Cheers.) He (Mr. Roebuck) had therefore a right to say that the Right Hon. the Recorder of Dublin had not been sufficiently care ful in his duty. He for one could not say much for his judg ment, and he would say nething'of his honour.—( Hear, and a laugh.) On the 28th of December the Recorder returned to Dublin, and sat in his Court, and on that day he stated pub licly he had given tho book to the Sheriff. On the 27th a no. tice had been served on the traversers to strike on the 3d of January, so that that notice had been served before even the book had been handed over to the Sheriff, and the book was not in the hands of the traversers themselves, until the 3d of January.—( Hear, hear.) So that between all the time from the 24th Nov. to the 28th Dec. nothing had been done, whilst everything had been driven off, so that at the last moment there was nothing but hurry and confusion.—(Hear, hear.) What was the consequence of that? That, when the 3d of January came, the copies of the panel having only just been furnished, the objection was very properly taken by the traversers' attorneys, that they were not prepared to strike, the prosecutors having only just handed over to them the copy. And yet they heard from the Learned Attor ney-General and his associates these constant complaints about delay. Delay !—delay, indeed ! Why, delay was proper. It was not only justifiable to seek it where it was necessary, as in stated the i t House to plainlye contradict n and tr ad i c broadly—and this case, for a fair trial, b u t it was a d u ty t o d o so . N ow , he him—that a n d t h h ee proceedings a o n n y t the man part in of the traversers were perfectly fai r an d justifiable, and that they did only that which was due to themselves, and to the just administration of the law, in taking every advantage they could, in order to secure their trial by a fair panel. Again, why had the Attorney- General denied to the traversers a list of the witnesses' names. That Right Hon. Gentleman said lie would not give it on account of the way in which Mr. Bond Hughes had been treated. But Judge Perrin said dis tinctly the traversers had a right to this list of names. Judge Burton held the same opinion, and even Judge Crampton tacitly admitted the right, but said they had applied too soon for it. What said the traversers then ? They said, " Give us the names ten days before the trials, and we will be satisfied." That most fair and con siderate offer was refused.—(Hear, hear.) Did not that show the spirit of the party—the spirit that pervaded the entire pro secution from the beginning to the end? Good God! if there had been a man with the slightest particle of generosity in his bosom, to guide and direct these trials, would such pitiful proceedings as these ever have been heard of ?—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir. Roebuck) would fancy a man, an Attorney- General—even then he had him in his eye—( Cheers) —who would have carried on this prosecution as he had followed up other public duties, in such a way and in such a spirit as to command respect, not only for himself, but for the law whose power he had to evoke.—( Loud cheers.) To proceed, how ever. The indictment was found at 4 o'clock in the after noon ; but the traverser& did not get a copy of it until nearly 7. The law allowed them but four days to plead, and yet the Irish Attorney-General, the copy of whose indictment was not delivered, had even actually required the Court to count this first day as one of the four days allowed to plead in.— ( Hear, hear.) There was a specimen of the man who talked so much about delay.—(Cheers.) The Attorney-General said that throughout the conduct of the traversers there was nothing but unfair fighting for delay. He (Mr. Roebuck) had now, he thought, shown the contrary of this assertion. He had shown, he hoped, that there was fair and necessary fighting for delay on the part of the traversers, and most indecent haste on the part of the officers of the Crown. —(Cheers.) Now there had been a motion made for quash ing the panel on the ground of fraud. The traversers said they could prove fraud ; and he (Mr. Roebuck) believed they were in a position to do this, or, at all events, to substantiate a charge of most culpable negligence. Why the judge himself had said it was a case of grave suspicion. Now he (Mr. Roe buck) wanted to know, why was not the allegation in the affi davit, charging fraud, at once met by the Crown with counter affidavits, and denied?—(Hear, hear.) That charge ought to have been instantly met and disproved, and, instead of that, it had been shrunk from and avoided.—(Hear, hear. ) Now lie would have challenged the fraud. The Attorney- General did not do so. He went to trial upon the demurrer, because he was afraid to try the issue. —(Hear, hear.) He had a right to say, and the country had a right to say, that justice was wholly tarnished by this mischievous demurrer.— ( Hear, hear.) But that was not all. The Attorney-General for Ireland stated that he had no alternative in this case but to go back to the panel of 1843, or put off the trial till the panel of 1845 should be formed ; he was therefore determined to persevere. Now for a moment allowing that he had no other alternative, could the traversers have been worse off if he bad gone back to the panel of 1843, than they were by being tried by that of 1844? By fraud or neglect, they were deprived of their fair chance ; so that, under any circumstances, by going back to the list of 1843, they could not have been worse off, and might have been better. Then, was it necessary to hasten on the trial when they had a fraud charged on them, and not disproved, and one that was believed by nine-tenths of the population? Common prudence would have said—put off the trial on any condition—go back to the list of 1843, or wait for the list of 1845, but don't try w ith a list so suspected.—( Hear, hear.) But the Attorney-General had an alternative, the alternative of a common jury. What hap pened? The leading counsel for the traversers said, discharge this jury and we will consent to the Sheriff returning another list of respectable persons from whom the jury should be taken. That offer was refused. He contended that the Attorney-Ge neral ought to hive moved to discharge his own rule, to have taken a common jury, and allowed the traversers to have been tried by that. In challenging that jury he might have said— that ratan is a repealer, that one a member of the Repeal Asso ciation. The latter fact might be a fair ground of exclusion from the jury, but the former could not ; a member of the Re peal Association was included in the accusation; the being a repealer only could not form a fair ground of exclusion. As it was, it was clear that the persons left were quite of the op posite opinions to the traversers they were as much partisans as if they had been repealers.—( Hear, hear.) A repealer, pro vided he was an honest man, ought to have been taken on the jury quite as much as any other. Now, he wanted to have it explained how it was that a common jury was not taken ?—( Hear, hear.) Every precaution might have been used; but it was not taken, and the only conclusion he could come to was this—that the Attorney-General would not have dared to strike off those whom he would have wished to strike off, and that the special jury was taken because he believed it would give the Crown a better chance ; therefore the common jury had been refused. So much had been said on the ques tion of the jury panel, that he should not trouble the House any more on that point.—( Hear, hear.) But he must say there was much that went to show the existence of great causes of distrust and suspicion around the whole proceedings—around the whole prosecution. lie was not there to say whether it was fraud or accident; but it so happened, unfortunately and fatally for the purposes of the prosecution, that there were cir cumstances connected with it that utterly destroyed its moral influence both in that country and in this.—(Cheers.) Eng lishmen would not endure to see the forms of law thus trifled with—thus perverted—thus wrested to the purpose of those who employed them.—(Loud cheers.) And they might depend upon it that, after all their array of legal forms, they had only come to this conclusion—they had converted the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork into a species of political martyr, and turned the tide of English feeling in his favour, which his own imprudence—he would give it no harsher name —had turned from him.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Before that trial, his (Mr. Roebuck's) feeling was strongly against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. But since the trial com menced, he had seen oppression practised under the forms of law, which had been perverted to bad uses, in a manner dis graceful to the whole country—(oh, oh, from the Ministerial benches, and cheers from the Opposition)—and he said at once that his feelings of indignation against the former proceedings of that gentleman were much changed.—( Hear, hear.) He still deeply lamented the unwise, the mischievous, and the im prudent course he had pursued ; but still he said that unwise, mischievous, and imprudent as that might have been, they, in endeavouring to cheek him, had done much more mischief— they had done injustice.—(Cheers.) The Attorney-General for England had said that it was extremely difficult to draw the line between arguments that were legal and arguments that were fraught with mischief. He agreed with him. It was extremely difficult to say where began the danger and mischief to the State. When a man was en deavouring to bring others to his opinion, so long, as he observed the forms of law, preserved the peace, and as long as every meeting was perfectly orderly, he wanted to know how they made it illegal? To bring multitudes to gether, that was not illegal, because they were peaceable. Then what made it illegal? Their construction of the law.— The object of the people was legal; the means they employed were legal—namely, the holding of large meetings. But they at once drew the inference, and came to the conclusion, that it was intended to overawe the Government by force, not be cause any alarm was caused, or any force employed, but because of the vast numbers of which these meetings consisted. He agreed v ith the principle that it was exceedingly difficult to say when this mode of proceeding was legal, and how soon it became illegal, when the object was to make a whole people of one opinion. But they had convicted the traversers—they had convicted them by means of their jury —(oh, oh, and iro nical cheers)—but they had not convinced the world.— ( Cheers.) No one ever doubted that the parties convicted on the charges of riot in Wales were guilty, there had never been vernment, or in any set of men who did not prove themselves worthy of that confidence ; and on this occasion there. were strong grounds for not placing that confidence. Ireland was now in a state bordering on civil war. The disruption of the empire was th rea t ene d. Th ere were two particular considerations which should be always re membered in considering the state of Ireland. They could not be separated. The first was the physical condition of the great mass of the people, and the second, the political and moral cir cumstances connected with that physical condition. He be lieved it was admitted by every statesman and writer of autho rity who had treated upon the subject, that the Irish people were the most wretched of any population on the face of the civilised globe. With every possible means of producing wealth, and comfort, and happiness, notwithstanding all the gifts that nature had showered upon:them—although that people were capable of attaining everything necessary for human hap piness, and were capable of being elevated to a high state of social refinement—notwithstanding all these circumstances, he said Ireland was the most miserable country in the world. But what was stranger still, she was united to the most powerful and the wealthiest of nations—to a people proverbial for their sense. of liberty and independence of spirit—yet she was the mo;t degraded and the most abject of all countries. He asked, were not these circumstances of themselves sufficient to war pared to adopt that sentiment. Why, the Courts of Common Law were the cradle of their liberties instead of their grave.— ( Hear. hear.) It was from the common law they derived some of the first principles of their liberties. Why, the trial by jury was a portion of the common law—an institution from which they derived one of the most important of their privileges. That was not the only instance. Who pronounced general search warrants illegal ? They had been issued by the Secre tary of State, and had been used for one hundred years; but when the subject came before the Judges, in the year 1770, they were pronounced illegal, as having no foundation in common law. The first effort made on behalf of the human race towards the extinction of slavery was made by the Courts of Common Law in the case of the negro Somer set. After coming to this country he had been re-shipped, but was brought from board ship by habeas corpus, when it was decided that the liberty of every human being was com mensurate with the shores of this country.—( Hear, hear.) It was this made Curran say that the moment the slave touched this country that moment the chains fell from around him. It was by a decision of the Courts of Common Law that the first move was made towards the abolition of domestic slavery. There were some cases so immediately affecting the institutions of the country, that though they stood on the same foundations as other parts of the Constitution, yet in point of the general sense and feeling of mankind, they were not to be meddled with except in extreme cases. No doubt any law that existed might be made the subject of discussion and petition ; but he would ask any one, if they would venture to propose an alteration of the Law of Succession in this country to what it was in France. There was, and very properly, a delicacy in meddling with such matters. He thought it would be matter of great regret, if it were not felt that there were certain parts of the Con stitution which ought to be lightly dealt with ; and the same ob servation applied to proceedings in Courts of justice.—( Hear. ) Now, his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Wor cester, had come down to the House on the sixth night of the debate, at a period of the evening when it was impos sible to reply to his speech. He believed that a fairer or a juster man than the Hon. and Learned Member for Wor cester did not exist on the face of the earth. This was the sincere testimony of one who had known him for thirty years.-- ( Hear.) But he would put it to him, whether comments might not have been made on the course to which he had referred. The lion. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) and the Hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) in their speeches, had insinuated that the doctrine of conspiracy was of a very questionable character. He (the Attorney-General) begged to assure those two Hon. Gentlemen that the doctrine of con spiracy was as old as the common law. If persons combined and confederated together for the purpose of any illegal act, beyond a doubt they were guilty of conspiracy. He recol lected a case wherein a number of officers resigned their com missions at the same time. No one doubted that every officer had a right to resign his commission, but what made these persons guilty of conspiracy was the circumstance of their agreeing to resign at the same time. By combining and confederating together to resign their commissions at the same time they forced their commander into a dif ficulty, and endangered the efficiency of the service. When several persons combined together, they became pos sessedj of a power which singly they could never have been invested with. By the law no person was held responsible for departure from the truth. But when persons combined to cir culate a falsehood, they thereby were guilty of a criminal act. It was even laid down by Hawkins that where two persons combined together to maintain a certain report, they were actually criminal, whether the report were true or false. He (the Attorney-General), however, was not at all prepared to concur in that doctrine. Now, what was the accusation in the late trials in Ireland? In turning to this subject, he did not wish to utter a word that was unfavourable to the defendants. He should endeavour to avoid this, considering that the verdict was still impending, and considering that judgment might be arrested by a motion in the Court of Queen's Bench. Now what was the charge? It was that the defendants combined together to procure a repeal of the union, by producing senti ments of alienation in the minds of the united empire, and by intimidatins , the Legislature. That was the charge, and he was astonished t to find any one complaining of that charge, on account of the reluctance evinced in bringing it forward. The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester said the late trials were similar to the trial of Lord George Gordon. They were no such thing. The charge against Lord George Gordon was for levying war. The charge in the present case was for conspiracy. Conspiracy to levy war was not treason. But this case was not even a con spiracy to levy war, it was a conspiracy to overawe and intimi date the Legislature, and by that means to produce a repeal of the union. It had been asked, why did you allow these meet ings to go on ? why did you not indict the parties for these illegal acts as they were committed? why had they not in dicted one person for a libel, another for attending an unlawful assembly ? why had they not proclaimed the illegality of these meetings, rather than let Mr. O'Connell fall into a trap ? Why the House must recollect that as far back as the month of May, there had been a discussion in that House on the subject of dis missing magistrates for attending those meetings. Could the Executive give better proof of their opinion of those meetings? --( Hear, hear.) But why did they not indict persons for at tending those meetings? Why that very Dublin jury, which it had been stated had been packed to obtain a conviction per fag aut nefas, had found that these meetings were not illegal. —( Hear, hear.) That should be stated to the credit of the jury, and also to the credit of the Government, which had ab stained from indicting persons for attending those meetings. The subject had engaged the anxious consideration of the Go vernment. He had, during the summer, seriously considered it, and he had great difficulty in forming any deliberate opinion as to these meetings. He agreed with his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Worcester, that numbers did not con stitute illegality. Persons might be assembled in great num bers to witness a review, to see her Majesty go to the Court, or for other purposes. It was clear that numbers did not con stitute illegality. It had been asked why a proclamation had not been issued to put down those meetings before ? Suppose those holding the meetings had hurled defiance to the proclamation, how was the proclamation to be enforced ? ( Hear, hear.) Nothing could have been more rash than to have interfered with those meetings.• If a Dublin jury could not be got to determine that those meetings were illegal, what chance could they have had with a Tipperary jury? The Right Hon. Gentleman had said last night that in 'Tipperary it was impossible to get a jury to do their duty. Mr. SHEIL denied that he had made such an assertion. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would not insist on it. As the Right Hon. Gentleman had forgotten that he had said it, he would forget that he had ever read it. Then it was said why not prosecute for libel ? He confessed he had a great ob jection to prosecute for libel.—( Hear, hear.) Perhaps he ought not to say so as Attorney-General, but he confessed he had a great objection to do so, because the law itself was in such a state.—(Hear, hear.) The administration of the law was also in such a state.—( Hear, hear.) Whenever he was consulted as a private lawyer on the subject, he always advised the party who consulted him not to go to law. He used to say that hard names broke no bones—( Hear, hear)—and that the first statesmen of the day were abused and villified.—(Hear, hear.) He might have been wrong.—( Hear, hear.) It was hard to say where fair discussion ended.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) He knew no question more difficult than to determine at what period the law officers of the Crown were justified in taking up a publica tion and pronouncing it libellous.—( Hear, hear.) He be lieved that Lord Campbell, when Attorney-General, pro secuted once, and only once, in the case of Mr. Feargus O'Connor. He believed that neither Lord Denman, nor Lord Lyndhurst, ever filed an ex-officio information. The Right [lon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) mentioned some thing last night about the army, and asked why they did not prosecute the writer of the article on the army, who was a Mr. Power. lie (the Attorney-General) recollected a prosecution against a person named Barrett, who was convicted and im prisoned. He went to gaol for a letter which appeared in his paper, the writer of it being Daniel O'Connell.—( Hear.) Why, therefore, should the Right Hon. Gentleman taunt the present Government for not prosecuting Mr. Power.—( Hear. ) When the Whigs prosecuted Feargus O'Connor, and he got eighteen months' imprisonment, the last act they did when they were leaving office was to release him from gaol. When he (the Attorney-General) prosecuted Mr. Feargus O'Connor for libels and seditious meetings, Mr. O'Connor acknowledged the justice of the course pursued by the Government. With re• spect to the course pursued by the Attorney-General for Ireland a similar ece r as au io d ti fd . o in the case of the allegation of fraud, he had only pursued the same course which he (the Attorney-General) laid down upon irr e l t ch i t e e e would d jr o Crown ‘vn ai s k iitt wa againstgaasi whom against tt sttha et alle gation against agentf was eds hbe t y h r i e wirb oomror when the fraud was committed. The allegation on chal lenging the jury was for fraud committed by some person un known. He did not desire the right to inquire into this allegation, but he agreed with his Right Hon. and Learned Friend that if this affidavit had been produced in Westminster Hall, it would not besentertained for a moment, for the Judge would ask the deponent when he swore he was con vinced there was some fraud by a person unknown, " Did you do it yourself ?"—( Hear, hear.) He did not at all mean by this illustration to attribute anything dishonest to the agents of the traversers ; but only to bear out the assertion of his Right Honourable and Learned Friend, that the course pursued on those trials was the same that would be observed in Westminster Hall. He sincerely hoped that this discussion would have the effect of soothing the feelings and enlisting the affections of the Irish people towards Englishmen. He responded to the sentiments exp ressed b y Hon. Gentle men on the other side of the House , and was quite ready t o agree in any remedial measures which might be proposed. On rant an inquiry? There was something still more dangerous in the condition of Ireland. There was that hostility among her people that would poison all the springs of happiness, even were they blessed with the utmost fruitfulness. The people were divided against themselves, and there was not only a na tional antipathy against England, but a hatred of one another. He did not allude to this anti-English feeling with any view to exasperate the minds of Hon. Gentlemen, but it was a fact which could not be lost sight of in the discussion on the pre sent motion. The national feeling of the people of England was warmed and animated by the recollections of the deeds of their forefathers ; all these great achievements were connected with the honour and glory of their country, and, as such, they prided in them ; but when Irishmen looked back on the past history of their country, they found that from one step to another there was nothing but humiliation, degradation, and misery caused by it. Every feeling of his mind was aroused by the hatred of his country, and it was impossible for an Irishman to love his native land without hating its oppressors; other ,' ise there was still worse mixed up with the social condition of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He alluded to the religious bigotry so prevalent in that country, and which, still more than any other cause, operated in pro ducing animosities. They held Ireland now by the strong arm— they occupied Ireland by military force. Let any soldier, and he doubted not that there were many Gallant Members on the other lido of the House of that profession, look on the map of Ireland and consider the force which was spread over it. And why had they done so ? Because they could not govern Ireland with affection—they were driven to govern her by force. The pre sent means of governing Ireland, and keeping down the discon tent of the people by a combination :of circumstances, did not find a parallel, were they to search the world from one end of it to the other. Even their army did not preserve peace, for at this moment the peace of that country was preserved partly by their arms and partly by Mr. O'C onnell.—(Hear, hear.) They were much indebted to him for the peace and compara tive tranquillity which the people of Ireland had exhibited, and it was this singular circumstance which should increase their solicitude. The condition of France and America should not be forgotten ; in fact the peace of the world at this moment depended on mere accident. If anything were to happen to that sagacious and prudent monarch who sat upon the throne of France, the peace of that country could be no longer calculated on. Then, if they looked to America—it was true they were at present on friendly terms with them—but if they read the speeches of members 'of Congress, they would find exhibited in there a feeling of commercial rivalry between the two countries ' • and in their negotiations with that proud republic , she would not forget the disunions of this country nor the discontent and dis satisfaction prevailing in Ireland, in any arrangement she might be called on to make with them. He had listened with great attention and pleasure to the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, and agreed with him fully in the lucid and noble sentiments ho had advanced, of the history of the connexion of England with Ireland, and the causes which led to the latter's present condition. He also agreed in the deductions which the Right Hon. Gentle man had made, but the Right Hon. Gentleman, when he came to 1829 made a leap to 1834, and very im perfectly and slightly touched on the intervening period. An overwhelming majority was returned to that House immediately after_ the Reform Bill; was passed ; but Ireland, instead of being conciliated, was coerced. The Irish people said, "what are we to expect—we are coerced into obedience —we cannot hope for liberty, for those who are at the head of liberty in England are despots in Ireland." It was a remarkable circumstance that Ireland, unfortunately, was a sort of battle field for both parties in this country. The wrongs of Ireland were the armour of one party, while the maintenance of religious truth, as stated by the Right Hon.;the Recorder for Dublin, was the armour of the other. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Re corder for Dublin assumed to himself infallibility, and yet how lately had he had reason to know how fallible he was, for he had been found incapable of arranging accurately the names of 700 persons. The cause of the discontent in Ireland could not be far off. They would find it if they looked back to the past history of the country. The cause of the discontent was not to be found in the agitation, at whose head was the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork. His power arose from the state of mind, and the wrongs which had created that state of mind, amongst his own coun trymen. The disease lay deep—it lay in the feelings of hos tility to the Popish religion which existed in this country, and which unfortunately had been so much increased of late. In spite of all their good intentions, Hon. Gentle men on the other side of the House were • looked upon by the Irish people as the representatives of that bigotry. Say what they would, the people o f I re l an d cou ld not rid th em selves of that belief. No doubt that a great number of the appointments of the present Government were made in a perfectly honest spirit. But what did the people say? They said, " Aye, it is all very well for them to claim the reputa tion of being liberal and benevolent towards us, but all our old enemies in this country are in power. He (Mr. Roebuck) held in his hand a book containing the trials of a party of Roman Catholic gentlemen who were tried for conspiring for getting up petitions to Parliament, in the year 1811. There were many persons living who were present at those trials, de fending the Roman Catholics ; and there were persons living created Thefirst who were present at th o se trials , for the purpose of accusing them. Those part ies were no w in power in Ireland, and those we e ritleli founded, thed Irishnee d r cittns dwho people.h e much suspicion in the minds of discontent of the Irish people was question that suggested itself was, whether anything could be done to relieve them from that discontent under whi ch they laboured. Would woupersons the repeal of the legislative union do this ? His answer was, that, as far as he could judge, repeal would only aggravate the discontent.—( Hear, hear.) The minority in Ireland were powerful and rich, and if repeal were to take place to morrow, it would be impossible to maintain the connexion with this country by the mere verbal bond of allegiance to the Crown.—( Cheers.) He could not conceive a greater mischief that could happen to Ireland than repeal, except the con tinuance of a military government. At the same time, he must say that the repeal of the union was an object that was perfectly competent for the Irish people to desire. It was a perfectly legal object -for any man to seek.. The Solicitor-General had said that it was illegal to attempt to remove the Act of Union. He gave no authority for this opinion—he merely stated it upon his own judgment. He (Mr. Roebuck) agreed with his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Worcester, in saying that. the repeal of the union was a perfectly legal object for any man to seek. Whether it was a prudent object was another question. He trusted that the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork would see, from the experience of the last few days, how much better it would be if all feeling of national animosity between the two countries were abolished. If we could avoid all national antipathies, how much stronger, happier, and better we should be.--( Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Cork must havel seen, within the last few days, that there was a feeling of sympathy in this country for the people of Ireland, and he must have been gratified at its exhibition. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) would ask the Government whether they were determined that Ireland should be ruled by force ? —( Hear, hear.) There must e ither be force or concession.— ( Cheers!) And what would force do ? It would only leave them at last where they were.—( Hear, hear.) With an army of 21,000 men in Ireland—with an army of constabulary, whose numbers had not been stated—with Ireland a mere garrison from one end of it to the other—did they expect that the people of England would look calmly on? Discontent would remain in Ireland as long as the cause of that discontent existed. The cause of discontent lay deep in the institutions of the country—for those institutions were created by force and fraud. Suppose an outbreak were to happen in that unfortunate land, and the Government were by arms to coerce the people to peace ; what torrents of blood would flow—what waste of countless treasures would be made before that object could be accomplished, and yet this would be the result of a Government of force, and such must be the Govetaiment of Ireland while the Protestant Church remained in its present state.—( Hear, hear.) ;The Hon. Member for Wakefield, the other night, asked, in a very sig nificant manner, why the Governm ent did not deal with the Church in Ireland in the same manner that they had dealt with free trade in England, namely, acknowledge the principle of equilisation, but take their own time to carry it out. That was a very artful suggestion , a nd might be attended with bene ficial consequences to themselves. But even this would not be conceded, for the declarations on the part of Hon. Gentle men opposite were of as m arked a character as they ever were. "No surrender " was still their motto, The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Recorder of Dublin, su p_ ported the existing • • Establishment in Ireland, because he said that the only mode of maintaining the truth of religion was by means of a State Church. Now, if they carried out that prin ciple, the Church only became a means of persecution persecution might be narrowed, but the spirit and the bigotry were there. Mr. SHAW—(emphatically) —No. Mr. ROEBUCK was not criticise the Hon. go ing to Gen tleman's intentions. Mr. SHAW—What did I say Mr. ROEBUCK—The Right Hon. Gentleman said he would maintain the Church, because it was the only true sup port of religious truth. Now, he (Mr. Roebuck) would main tain that any person who said he would uphold the Church as a means of maintaining what was called religious truth, was a persecutor in spirit. Seeing that kind of _persecution coming upon them, the people of Ireland had a right to rise up against it, and say that they also bad an infallible religion ; and, inasmuch as they were seven to one, there was seven chances to one that theirs was the true religion. He was not speaking of the religion of the Right Hon. Gentle man. No doubt he was perfect in his faith, but he ought to SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1844.. a doubt raised about it. Yet they had just as many difficulties there, but they convicted the prisoners. No one had found fault with them. No man had said it was wrong. The ver dict was not only according to law, but according to opinion. They had not done so in this case, their proceedings had lost all moral effect. And now he asked what had their Government of force done ? With their army, and with their verdict, where were they then ? Were they not on the very verge of the difficulty they had all along contemplated ? Were they not beholden to the very man whom they had brought vrithia the law for the preservation of the peace of Ireland? Now, what were their means of getting rid of the difficulty ? He wanted to relieve the physical misery of Ireland. That could not be done until they got rid of dissension and produced peace. This they could not do while the Irish Church question re mained unsettled. He was not going to conceal his opinions on this subject. He was not for raising any new establishment in that country ; but he was for putting down the present system. He would take the proceeds of the Irish Church as they fell in, and apply them to the great object of the education of the people. And what was the objection to this course ? He wanted to know why a Church was maintained that did nothing it ought to do, that gave rise to dissensions and strife, and was the actual cause of all the misery existing in Ireland ? Why should not such a Church be put down, and peace and happiness restored ? He would tell them why it was not. It was because they were a:raid that the principle which they applied in Ireland would be applied in England. But they might take this difference with them ; in England they had not a Church which was the Church only of one-seventh of the population. ( Hear, hear. The Church of England was the Church of a large portion of the people, who loved, who followed her. But the Church of Ireland was a domineering Church. It was a sinecure Church. It was a Church that was detested by seven parts out of eght of the people. There was a great difference, then, in the position of these two Churches, and if a time should ever come when the Church of England should only be the Church of one-seventh part of the population, he believed he knew his countrymen well enough to say that it could not be maintained as an Established Church one single day. The Irish Church was maintained by the bayonet, and the bayonet alone. Was Christian truth—was Christian feeling—was any purpose for which a Church was established—in any way for warded by such an establishment? For the sake of securing the peace and happiness, not only of Ireland, but of England, and not merely of England, but of the world—considering all these great interests, was not their path clear ? Let them look before them. It only required some man who had that within him that should teach him the way to lead the people. If being that man who could teach as well as govern, he should place himself above the prejudices of his time, and by incurring that great responsibility, make himself worthy of receiving that great reward of his magnanimity—the admiration of a grate ful posterity. Mr. O'Connell and Mr. F. Shaw rose together ; the former gave way, and Mr. SHAW proceeded to offer some explanation to the House respecting the jury lists and the affidavits, but was com pelled to resume his seat from the loud cries of " Order,"-and 4 Spoke," which arose on every side. Mr. O'CONNELL rose amid the most marked silence and l i attention on both sides of the House. He said,—There is not an individual in the House who will suppose I have risen for the purpose of saying anything about myself. There is no one in the House who, after I have concluded, will have discovered, if he had not known it before, that I have any personal inter est in these trials. I have come here for another purpose—l have come to make one protest, to ask one question —to protest, in the name of my coun try, and on behalf of my countrymen, against the commission of one additional injustice to the people of Ireland. I have come to ask the simple question, How is Ireland to be governed?— (Cheers.) There is one fact—a fact which it is impossible for any one to deny—that no one country in the world has ever been so oppressed by another as Ireland has been by Eng land. This fact was clearly illustrated—it was demonstrated by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh the other evening —the greatest crimes that one country ever committed against another have been perpetrated by England against Ireland. 'Then, let us see what was the state of Ire land previous to the union, and what is the condition of that country now ? Was Ireland in a state of abject distress pre vious to the union, and has she since risen to great plenty and prosperity? Is that the fact ? Before the world, I ask the Right Hon. Gentleman directly opposite, is that the fact ? Why, Sir, for eighteen years before she lost her self government it is on record that no country ever made such rapid strides in prosperity. Mr. Pitt did not say that he sought the union to make Ireland a greater commercial coun try than she then was. No, that would have been a good ar gument for the union. No, but he said that Ireland exported three millions and imported only one million worth of manu factured goods, so that in his argument in support of the union, he admitted as one of his reasons for its adoption, that Ireland was then in a condition of great and rapid im• provement; but, not content with letting that prosperity go on, he anticipated that he would greatly increase it on account of the union. How few are those here now who remember that prophecy of his ? But has it been fulfilled ? Is Ireland now in a state of prosperity ? I am not here now speaking of corporate rights or Parliamen tary power, but I speak of commercial and agricultural prospe rity. You talk of the agitators in Ireland exaggerating her misery and exciting discontent, but to you I attribute the misery of Ireland. Many of you, no doubt, have read an article in the Times of yesterday. They have kindly inserted it for my purpose. They quote the sentiments of Kohl, a man who has travelled through all Europe. He is a native of Germany, and cannot, therefore, he charged with prejudice or partiality. And he says that, in all his travels, he never knew, or met, in any country on the face of the globe so much of misery ; and this—this - is the result of your forty-four years of boasted union legislation.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Then there is another gentleman, with certainly not a euphonious name, a Mr. Wiggins, and he says, that he firmly anticipated that on the granting of Catholic Emancipation prosperity would immediately ensue; but he has now published his book, and he declares that poverty has increased, and that nothing can equal the misery of the people. Then, how can it be said that the popular leaders have ex aggerated those miseries? Why, have not the Poor-law Com missioners declared that two million three hundred thousand people, out of eight millions, are in a state of the greatest destitution ? that is, one-third of the population, are in this miserable condition. You have enumerated the population, in 1821, 1831, and 1841, and Captain Larcom has calculated that among the agricultural population 70 per cent. are in a state of destitution, and in the town population it exists at the rate of 30 per cent., and among the latter no family has more than one room to live in, and for the most part, several families are crowded into one room. Between 1821 and 1831, the po pulation rapidly increased, but fell as rapidly from 1831 to 1841, until it fell to 70,000 less. How then can we account for such facts as these ? All this has occurred since the union. It is all owing to the union. How do you govern Ireland? You can take your legal proceedings. You can send your armies over there, but can they mitigate this misery ? Oh ! how little should I care for these trials, if I could but arouse this House, if I could but open the eyes of the people of England to the state of Ireland.—(Cheers.) With all my delinquencies on my head, I found among the people of England a generous sympathy, which I never, never can forget; and if there be wisdom in statesmen you will rally now and mitigate the suffering condition of the people of Ireland.— ( Cheers.) Ohl but what little chance have we of witnessing such a consummation ! How many and how deep are the pre judices we have to contend against. The union between the two countries should have been real—their interests should have been identical—their franchises the same—their rights the same. You should have had no difference—no more than you have between the counties of York and Lancaster—that was Mr. Pitt's object. Ile proposed Ca tholic Emancipation, and he offered to establish religions free dom ; but some very conscientious men advised the King to withhold that measure, and Mr. Pitt, in consequence, withdrew from office. Now, where is the man to be found who does not regret that emancipation was not then passed ?—( Hear, hear.) I think that man must be th e mos t s t u pid of m en who does not regret that the union was not a real one, and that it has been but a nominal one. The Catholic clergy might then have accepted of a provision from the Crown. You might then have made your own terms with the clergy and the people of Ireland—( Hear, hear)—but the cry of " The Church in danger," then, as now, infatuated you. Lord Byron has said that the identification of the union between the two countries, was like the identification of the shark with its prey, and I must not forget that the very first At* of Par liament passed by your United Parliament was, an Act suspend ing the Habeas Corpus Act, and proclaiming military law in Ireland—that was your first Act ; and then, when the first peti tion for Catholic Emancipation was presented, in 1806, Mr. Pitt opposed it—he lost his honour, but he retained his place.— ( Hear, and cheers.) The Whigs shortly came into office ; they abolished the slave trade in the colonies, and they allowed Catholics to attain rank in the army and navy. We were then engaged in a terrible, war. We were in open contest with the most powerful individual that had appeared for centuries. Would not the Right Hon. and Gallant Officer opposite (Sir H. Hardinge), who has displayed so much bravery in the field, and who has shed his blood for his country, think it cruel to be refused his rank and deserved honours, because he was not of the dominant religion ?—( Hear, hear.) And there were those in Ireland, who were anxious to seek for those honours, and who aspired to the glory of fighting for their country. But you raised the No Popery cry again.—(Cheers.) The cry of " The Church in danger" was raised.—( Cheers.) It was raised to such a dangerous extent as would now appear incre dible. Some of the Whig gentry, who represented counties for a number of years, lost their places in consequence of the votes which they gave in favour of the Bill. Was ever popular in sanity greater ? Could any thing be more absurd ?—(Cheers. ) You had a fine opportunity to do justice, but you perpetrated a greater absurdity—( Hear, hear)—which may vie with that of 1805. Mr. Perceval came into office, and he declared per petual hostility to the Catholics. He took his stand on the union—( Hear, hear) just as your cry now is, that one of the articles of the union declares the preservation of the Church. —(Hear, hear.) But we got emancipation, and the Church yet remains.—( Hear, hear.) Why do I discuss those things ? Will those discussions have no effect? I heard a Noble Lord, who, from his high rank and station, is destined to be one of the leading statesmen of this country, deliver sentiments which show, and papers which I have received from Glasgow tend to strengthen the opinion, that the answer will be in the negative. Mr. Perceval declared against the Catholic claims, and was determined that they should not be extended any further. We then perceived that we must de• pend on our own exertions. Every exertion was made to put us down. One prosecution was instituted which succeeded, Mother failed. But the combination went on.—( Cheers.) The power of Napoleon was spreading and increasing, which sti mulated you to realise the strength of Ireland in combination with you. Friendly counsellors governed Ireland then, to whom you never showed proper gratitude. You had the Ca tholic clergy of Ireland—alarmed at the progress of French in fidelity, which was spreading like lava throughout Europe— with you. And it was owing to the Catholic priesthood that Ireland was kept in combination with you. The Catholic priesthood preserved Ireland for you. It was the greatest mis take that ever Napoleon committed that he undervalued the importance of Ireland to this country. And I hope that pro vidence, in its care for this country, had blinded him on that occasion.—( Hear. ) As you became weak you became wise. Napoleon had gained the battles of Bautzen and Lutzen, and it was thought (bat he was recovering his power. The House of Commons, for the first time, declared that the next session they would take into consideration the Catholic claims with a view to some settlement. In the interim Na poleon's power was broken, and he became a wanderer and an alien, and the pledge of the House of Commons was forgotten. It was not safe to emancipate the Catholics, and they could not be trusted. Then we struggled for ourselves. We had our monster meetings, our provincial meetings, our simulta neous meetings of the parishes thoughout Ireland. You at tempted. a prosecution then; you failed, and you revenged yourselves by the Coercion Bill of 1825—the first Coercion Bill that was passed for Ireland. I recollect, then, that the leading agitators, the Bishops, and persons of every class repaired to London. We threw ourselves on our knees before you, we begged as beggars would do for alms, that you would take the state of Ireland into your consideration. You might then have obtained guarantees and powers, which you would now have as little chance of getting as you would of turn in g back th e Thames to its source.—(Hear.) We would even h ave received with gratitude what would then be considered a bountiful fa vour.—( Hear, hear.) You lost that opportunity,. and we again had recourse to our own resources. You rejected th our offers, and we returned to Ireland. We r aised the cry, a t there was nothing for us but " Hereditary bondsmen know you not, Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." That was Ireland's motto. We assembled together, and the people were indigamit at the offer which were made. Eman. cipation was at length tarrie d. You attem p ted to return s supporter of Government for the county of Clare. I oppose! him, and was returned by a majority of 1,990.—(Ch eer9. ! Emancipation necessarily followed ; but y ou g ranted it in 55. undignified way.—(Cheers.) That which you might Ile; given to entreaty y o u yielded to necessity.—( Cheer s.) which we would - have received as a favour, was extorted by triumph.—(Cheers.) And I am proud to say that noal".ot ell atom of the insolence of triumph was shown by ray men.--( Cheers.) Your union was a failure, because the serew on which it was based were fraudulent. It was extorted superior force. You had 175,000 troops in Ireland, and lit t spent 4,275,0001. in bribery and corruption. You earriel in the spirit of the sheerest dishonesty.—(Hear, hear.) Jrber land had 300 .oembers, and you left her but 100, when the very lowest calculation showed that sh e was entitled to 150 least.—(Hear.) iVlien you granted the emancipation-4°i you granted it at the sacrifice of the poorer class of v oters !. W . the 40s. freeholders, avd you raised the franchise to 101, ; (Here Lord Stanley whispered something Lord Robert Peel. )—I know what the Noble L cen; whispering at this moment, as well as if I were in his dence.—(Laughter.) He is saying that I consented t a n nihilation of the forty-shilling freeholders. I did not con_ I sent to it, for I think it was a gro,:s injustice. On that 38; sion you raised the cry of " The Church in danger." The Plee,ue., Lord will find it in my book , that did not consent to th struction of the forty-shilling freeho lder s . There aras,_°o portion—l consented to abolish one pas t, namely, that o r , ! ba people who were not likely to live ti l l a s econd election g means of voting. I consented to the abolition of this, cause it was fraudulent, as I would consent to abolish every'l.) thing fraudulent wherever it existed.--( Hear, an d cbee_ e But even if I did consent to their annihilation, it is nn : ear , cation of your crime that I participated in it.--s-Hear !s e ear It; i ger. and a laugh.) What was your next injustice ? excuse, also, on account of the Protestant Church in de It is the scapegoat of all your iniquities.—(Cheers. ) t he you think it secure even now ?—(Cheers.) You linow; ro , privileges of the people of Ireland wi th regard to corpert fe ol form, that you might have bulwarks and outworks to ; 004 the Protestant Church. And, at the present 01 °'_had what prevents you from doing ju stice to Irp. but the Protestant Church ?—(Hear, and cheers.) k , the Reform Bill followed Emancipation , an d, as I thin it consequence of it. At least I take credit for gisin i .g., it? strong support—but what did the Irish people get ul You gave eight representatives to Scotland, with only r e t lions of inhabitants—you gave five to Ireland with eqh, o ar lions of inhabitants.—( Hear, hear.) To every one et l e o counties, having a population of 50,000, you gave an In er oo a of one Member ; to those with a population of 20 0 A ri te gave two additional Members. You gave two Moshe r o f the island of Anglesea — you did no t g ive the coon /tho Cork one. —( Hear, hear.) I wrote letters in to oil newspapers, and I wrote a pamphlet, which I put hands of many Members of the House , showing the in1'"00- done to Ireland with regard to the number of h er rePretibls fives. If we had 150 representatives it would be imp^ boa to treat Ireland with the injustice with which she h as hlt treated. Mayo, with a population of 35,000 inhabitantte only 900 voters; Cork, with an agricultural lßith 75,000 inhabitants, has only 1,500 voters ; while W 3 le i ' a population of about 800,000, has twenty - seven repr7, eat tives in this House, and 36 , 000 voters. Does end (bat imagine that the Irish people are so stuP,'"econy they will live under such a scheme of too, ment as this, every preference being made against? ?be and every insult and restriction enacted against theta co ol Noble Lord opposite proposed a Reg i s t r ation Bill, and e the it through two readings in this House , w h ic h would ha,/ par effect of altogether destroying the already Ihniten 10 0 chise of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) Many, sch e _,oo on other occasions with the Government, on this ns—raised voted against them. Under these circumstances thef,nion the question of the repeal. It was broug ht under dis'" o f in this House, only one English Member voted in faslyotel 42 Irish Members voted in favour of it, and WO ay: 1 :400 against us. Then a declaration was made of the deter"; 00 of the Government to uphold the union, and at the sato& the House pledged itself to remedy the grievances 8 ,,f " - ol eos , That pledge was made by the King, Lords, and,r i j o asat , and though it had not the legal effect of an Act of rar: ic iarY it might justly be considered one morally. After this eiet Lion we gave up the agitation for the repea l, or remat,"ooA for four years, but not a single grievanc e was tbst We remained four years without stirring , in the her TO something would be done ; and something was don e ' floole Noble Lord's Bill passed the second reading, and the s i s went into Committee. I do not like reading donn,n! h ew, this House, but there is one , the reading of wil e osts shorten my speech, because it contains a great deal fo t o itir should otherwise be compelled to enlarge upon. I I ° o ol plore the House to observe how we have conducted 0,01 here. Before we took one step more towa rds the ry„-oiatf' the union, we formed what we called the Precuraor '' - 0 01 812 From that Society I presented a petition , and I tb s l it in this House. The Honourable Membe r then petition, petition, which commenced as follows :—" We, the urte c 7f demand the attention of this Hon. House to our chin / errs' and equal justice to Ireland. Equal justice means sive; identification of rights, privileges, and franchises or.m.„glan plc of Ireland with those enjoyed by the people d We respectfully, but most firmly, demand and insist 11 1:;d0 5 r identification. The people of Ireland are entitled to, a 5 tb° have, an equality of political and religious freedom V i ott i people of England. They seek nothing more, they ri contented with anything less. The petitioners thee w . ir TO; to state the grounds of their claims, and said, that thv ie re", sent object was to render the union complete and n ej e , IV by making it a real, instead of a nominal l ie, changing it from a union of parchment inte.,;oo into of interests, and affections." In order to carry the nw o f practical effect, they demanded, first, an equalisation tos elective franchise in both countries ; secondly, a V l oo l , ll ' corporate reform equal to that obtained by Englann ur ig? an adequate representation in Parliament; fo equalisation of religious freedom with England and tod,:j " Should the prayer of our respectful petition be g tt rii , irate " ...A , who have subscribed this petition, are boand good faith, not to seek for the repeal of the union. Or e p hear, from .. the Opposition.) I drew this . sP e (continued the Hon. Member), and I sig:3lo-0.5 " We tell this House that there are moral and physical to in the Irish people which will hereafter cause many taaw, that they did not avail themselves of the present oppr;000' of consolidating the union." The petition concluded as Le t r " We do loudly and firmly call on the House not to denattiSit ligion by . making it a cloak and an accessory to e rizieh ir e, act now justly and generously towards the people, ef „ r 2 and to indemnify them for past oppressions by gon i na, s t full guarantee for future freedom." I moved, upon •: 0 0 - •rj tion, for an increase of the franchise. What was Inl'eraatj My motion was seconded; it was opposed by the Ge f , r s, then in office, and it was opposed by those who h ave them. I will say that that reasonable and fair offer ipto e s have been accepted, and even if it were not, m 3114114 oat ye grievances of Ireland should have been instituted. 01;0 were defeated—we were scouted out of this floall.tbsliii, knows little of the feelings of an Irishman who thie oiere.",ol, could possibly feel otherwise than degraded, if he seq, JI silence in the endurance of a wrong.—(Hear, bear.i bi sk ' t o lect that I had the strong case of physical suffering tn . . e set e sl Was it not our duty, by every constitutional Oros endeavour to remedy the political insult and thh9os sufferings of our country ?—(Hear, hear.) Ist. 00 more at length than I bad inteadeu . O V' 0 1 history of the crimes of the union since it w po i 00 4 , say of the follies of the union.—( Hear, hear. ? a je:4olt little more to say ; but, in the name of the peop le t Je-0 and Ido it expressly in their name—l roust prole s / p ros your prosecutions.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)ol 41 jo i , against them; first, on account of their nature. 00 0 0 % meetings, every one is admitted to be legal ; n e :, peached as against law ; each, separately conside r . 0 , enbil the calendar of crime a cypher. But, by multiply lit?_ you come, by a species of legal witchcraft, to ihenbe meeting is legal, that meeting is legal, 3°- „ D • gs meeting is legal, but three legal Ine e- 0 001 5 ,10 0 ' one that is illegal.—(Laughter.) The nr ess:Apte . , Ireland will understand that reasoning ; you tn i tp o rol•K, but you cannot laugh at them with impunity. test is against your striking Catholics from the P:feor d iv r t is no doubt of the fact. There will always 1 00 " 7 ,lthre" the commission of a wrong. The Noble Lord s t % fin i sf e a precedent, and he quoted me to show wh at ; we _that is was. I was not in the House at the time, but h',..,% f le de r . , reached me through the ordinary channels. I " has charged me with having packed a Catholiertitilleidas not perhaps use the word " packed," but I thT r d'Ol o st appropriate word to convey the Noble .. „..(G io ivri o if not the word he used, it is equally signifinseo 0%0 The Noble Lord accused me of having unsafe ( ' trbali O 4, Catholic jury to try a Protestant gentleman• charge, and I admit that it is a very serious one;ibuitposi had no public responsibility, I had the resPl o old o ttsr) every gentleman at the bar must feel, that he 5 d o:1; 0 1, 1 his case according to the rules of solid justice, e ll , Bear' decency and justice for any purpose vvhatever.noel The case was that of General Bingham. , e t ot o lit Bingham, who was a politician rather tavoure', th": 4 0° 0 1 of the popular party, and a distinguished nn" w ith 8 ,4 0 , upon the high road, to enter into an altercationioit 5e.40,10 man, which ended in his riding hi s horse a g bt forloder! pushing him into a dyke. An action was brat.. the It is in this case that I am charged with ha Bl r d jury. Now it happened that the a ttorneY rie '4 6 4, secution was a Protestant, Mr. John, lir riS aOlOO l assistant counsel for the prosecution of 111 r. re k f r on . ..; was also a Protestant. Ido not wish to & n u pon v" s trrof sponsibility, direct or indirect, which may rest...., 0 Dil m I happened to be in another Court while the Ju` s f, D r) and I only came into Court as the last Pol o f lon e bss f c e sworn.—( Hear, hear.) Whatever was d0n e ,.......(11e.;e1f ee Protestant attorney and the Protestant counsei eacioaletisOri, But was it in fact a packed jury ? Was it an_stot et tholic jury ?—( Hear, hear.) No ; two FN . '. • 04 0 / 0 of -- high character were appointed h app ene d d a p, Mr. Baker and Mr. Travers ; and it ht o ce larly enough, that Mr. Travers, in c",,soelther ge(Clielo? taken ill, was allowed to retire, and bite , •'. ol l v ai a Protestant magistrate, was substituted ro cling a LAO / I feel as much as any one the baseness of pa:;re;erit list persons of one religion, to try a person golf (bee f pro, but I think I have quite vindicated my fib re o tb r o tri‘,, (Cheers.) A list has been sent to me of 5 . 0 10 1 of ce l l o a j tegi, In 1838 a Catholic priest was tried for the er , fre t The jury consisted of five Catholics and se_ . ! e rt itet What was their verdict ? An immediate N: oo thf' eb til a a without leaving the box.—(H ear, hear.) ir , whloepif case of sedition, has been sent to Catholics' Bre were ten Protestants, and two Roman found P ar Bl Pasr who was tried was a Catholic. The jurY • g ee in s . l oo rs without leaving the box.—( wore --- f ciple, then, I say that there never was Cates „.stiet tion than the insinuation that ten or I v` e t it or 811 0 151 : 1 0.,, P' would perjure themselves on any accou y e e lo ile o r' Hear, hear.) A. #„. Another complaint which I have to make ag hear. ) The out 0, diminishing the jury list.—( Hear, jo th e Ottr A ' the array did not allege fraud generallY,r strikia ay °let' but a particular fraud, viz., the fraud 0 _ ra _ du ien re.. „( In the plea it was alleged that they were he f tr aefepl a with intent to injure the case d sa i d e o oc a' hear.) I was not here when tt, . 112 behe er fect., Attorney-General for England—the" not p pb tleman ever conducted a prosecution_ wis . s . h na bere ber ,:io , racy and propriety—( Hear, hear) —I . 85 w o that P le tber sp said that there could be no validity t o vibe_ t 0,0! persons were named; I beg to submitut. Tvi,"; dictment for the murder of a person u w ere 5. 0 (10 c o and as valid an indictment as if the flans s ite rn ie t be eP t BP (Hear, hear.) One absurdity of the opPo____ been joi_odt be evident ; it would not be possible to c e ar o r , L o 0 0 0 justice.—( Hear, hear.) Would it not, t a li t pot right, when fraud was alleged, and,. PF ro d he j atte r r oat to have courted investigation ? it inmph for til l , sec o or, proved, that would have been a tr . ati d 11!_, t he Loh; General.—(Hear, hear.) He did wisely_ tria l li7 oo to os o to his mode of action, to strengthen tnu ervation °e:4llOJ which he pursued. I have but one 0 1 . e Asv , Of A ofe , upon this trial, and it is this. Since tb ttL a tdee Titus Oates there has not been a more rj flear , io tt o rmaa that delivered by the judge in this cas e th c% eoo ,o: l cheers from the Opposition. ) These ar e n ee. pheboorq I have to make on the part of j os yor ieo , co % And now I turn to you, en i u relan d will do for the people of W al l t" Oti ..d $ $ You cannot be keeping an army Pelg at 1,. that will not answer.—(Cheers.) "., 1 ~o u u" o o lil e :`ten P o ts troops for your colonies, or what vl.„1 ,00 0 o tt ai p break out, if you maintain an array 0 ' w hat P o ol ee;i t i 61 in Ireland ?—(Hear.) Now, I ask Y ° 00 0 Var . do for Ireland ? I have learned tbru ed g via ,—. has of information from which I leo a