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

TIRE SUN LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUAR' 24, 16144. 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 proved it to be in other parts of the country. Lord CANIOYS 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 mo , t unpleasant part of their duty, by the removal of the paupers tothe union-house, he thought it would not be un fair for them to contribute to the salary of the chaplain. The Bishop of EXETER rose to express his thanks to the Noble Baron (Wharncliffe), and to the Government for the declaration that they would introduce such a clause. Lord WHARNCLIFFE had not said anything of the soit,—( Hear, and a laugh. ) The Bislrip 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) not withdraw his motion, but would allow it to be negatived. The motion wag then negatived without a division, and the House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Feb. 23. The SPEAKER took the chair at Four o'Clock. The following Bills were read a second time and ordered to l,e committed :—The Ribble Navigation, the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway, the Ramsay Inclosute, the nary (Hunting don) Inclosure, and the Liverpool New Gas and Coke 11:11. NEWBURY AND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. 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 night. Mr. R. PALMER hoped that the Hon. 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 teetlis of the landholders through whose property the Newbury and Basingstoke line would run. He had, however, no wi-h to oppose the second reading, if the two Bills were permitted 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 could 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. Ile thought he was not asking too much, in moving that the Bud be now read a second time. Mr. FRANCIS BARING had no doubt but that the Right Hon. Baronet would withdraw his opposition to the second reading of the Bill, if the lion. Member for Reading would give the House his assurance that the second reading of the Bill for the competing line should not be opposed, but that both Bills should be referred to the Committee at the same time. —( Hear, hear. ) The lion. Member for Reading, however, had not consented to give any such assurance. He ledieved 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 lion. Member for Reading gave sortie as•otrance that the second reading of the other Bill should not be opposed, lie 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. CL A usToN E. 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.—(llear, hear.) He thought it would be much better if these two Bills NN ere to be brought before the House tit the same time.— ( Hear, hear. ) Ile agreed with his lion. Friend that it v uld he must unfair if the consideration of this Bill were to be postponed for any very long lime, because. he was aware of the great advantages to be derived by the public from diligence and celerity, but there et,,,1,1 be no suspicion of a want of either on the part of the promoters of these Bills ; but still he thought their postpone. meta for a fortni2ht would do no harm.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. A GLIONB Y said one of these Bills was before a Com mittee, of which he was a member, and he thought that before the next meeting of the House the Committee would be pre- ' pared ;alai its lieport. Mr. C. RUSSELL said that on behalf of himself anti of the Company to which he had the hcnour to belong, he begged to say that ha hail no desire to act counter to the wishes of the House, and he should consequently accede to the required postpotien , :ent. The second reading of the Bill was then postponed for a fortnight. REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES—SUPPLY. Mr. FIELDEN presented three petitions from Manchester, Liverpool, andlhain—the last bearing 3,2 t) 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 abet from Preston. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition, signed by Andrew Cross, chairman of a public meeting of the inhabitants of, Taunton, complainit , of the unjust and extra vatint legislative, and oppressive, and partial monopolies, civil and eecksiastical; and they prayed the House not to vote the supplies necessary to support the present enormous military I . ,:rce till these causes of complaint were redressed. Also, peti tions from Crediton, in the county of Devon, and from Whit church, in Hampshire, to the saute effect. NEW ZEALAND. Mr. B. BALDWIN presented a petition from New Zealand, stating that they paid 30,0001. a-year for protection, !tad yet that autlicient protection was not afforded them. They, therefore, prayed for sufficient protection, and also for an in itiry 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 reduction of those taxes which bear most heavily on the working classes, he should, believing it to be more con,i,tent 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 Ise in the recollection of the House that when he introduced his Poor-law Amendment Bill, he .lid so at a moment's notice, the House having met on the Sat erday, inconsequence of its having counted out the previous evening. Ile 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 doeutnent. On that occasion the Hon.' and Gallant Member for Brighton (Captain Peelle11) put a question to him wheel 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 in the Bill 'authorising interference with the Gilbert ' unions. He was incorrect in stating this, and he apo • legised to the lion. and Gallant Member, and to the House for the mistake. There was one clause In the Bill, luring reference to local Acts, the object of which 4iould be prepared to discuss on a future occasion. He would propose the second reading now, and take the dis emeiuri on the motion for going into Committee. But if this retiree should be objected to, considering the important debate Good 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- Fused, he would move that the Order of the Day be then read. Mr. I'. LORTHW ICK, for one, had no objection to the Right lion. Baronet reading the Bill a second time, provided he nave an understanding that there would be an opportunity of discussing, not only the amendments proposed in the Bill itself, but also the whole principle of the Bill.—( Hear. ) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said such opportunity would be afforded on the motion for going into Committee. Capt. PECH ELL said the 56th clause, in connexion with the 17z h 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. Ile hoped the Right Hon. Baronet 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. DUNCONIBE exonerated the Right lion. Baronet from all blame for introducing the Bill On a Saturday. It was by the des;re of himself (Mr. T. Duncombe) and other Hon. Meailiers, that the Right Hon. Baronet had so introduced his bill. He should not oppose the second reading, although he thought it 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 beenlis intention to move for the appointment of the Committee before Easter. He would give the Hon. Gentleman due notice of hit 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. Atter a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, the Bill wets ; 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 rising, 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. POSTAGE PAPERS: Mr. WALLACE wished to know from the Hon. Gentle man, the Secretary for the TreasurY, when the free 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 days for deli very. They would be sold to the public at the same price as the present envelopes, namely at two shilling and three pence a quire, and lid. each separate sheet of paper': ADJOURNED DEBATE.—IRELAND. • The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate ' having been read, The . ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he rose to discharge* duty which, he 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 note he could not pessibly 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 H on. and Learned Member for Worcester, and to have commented on the observations he made. But he was sure the House would ex- I ease him for saying, that the moment he heard that Hon. and Learned Gentleman drop from his lips the . words, " his honour, - in - referring to his Right Honourable and Learned Friend, the Attorney-General for - 'lreland, 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 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. The 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, as 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 which 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 for 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 beers expressed with reference to the course ofproceed 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 1t , 34. 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, ho said, " You need never come to use again for advice. The respon sibility is yours, and let me give you this general direction, — consider well what you are about—make yourself master of the subject—don't decide in a hurry—ascertain what is yriur 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 thi 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 whieh 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 les 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 Hon. and Learned Friend had mixed up 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 deeue ct tutu nun 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 gratification. But it was rather the oration of an author, a poet, or an orator than of a great statesman. Ile 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 Ito 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 ought 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 titan he 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, be 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 iistlifferently taken from the centre panel, In the heat of argument, the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of the jury as being selected. V. 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 phased the Crown and the tra versers on the same footing. The Hon. and Learned Gentle tlernan (Mr. Shed) had said that " the lottery" had not turned out so favourably for the traversers as it might have done. But that formed no 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 s w it n uation. He went down to Carmarthen to the trials. There He : vi s as small sorry t p o op h u a la y t e ion tn e a n n t d er a in i t im o ite t d hes j e ury details publicly, for they were not very desirable for publication, but he was compelled to do so. When the jury list was laid before hi m he found only seventy-two . names upon it, and he was credibly informed, that a veryconsi derable number of those per sons on the ry ju list could not be trusted ; that som e o f them actually had taken part in those riots and outbreaks, and others were re presented by their relations, their neighbours, or th e i r f r i en d s. In short, he found there were upwards of thirty names he could not call upon with safety. What was ho 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 polities. He men tioned this to show that he placed confidence in them. He felt that they were prepared to do their duty as much as he was tino ot prepared khat place lrt woi to fthEodnuogt challenges s r ad . 1,1 ea nn ' gd he etsh y ebe t y od ito l ngl h d i na m what was the custom hat a im de e th n b o u th o trial s. ev ll e e r had the authority and support of his Learned Friends, and he felt that he ought to exercise to the fullest extent the 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 done in Dublin in 1844. Such a proceeding would have created an impression that the proceedings were unfair. In his (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, cateris paribus, he should be dis posed to leave Roman Catholics on the jury ; but how did the fact stand ? Was the case cccteris 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 panel. 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 Repealers, 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, 1842, 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 resolutions bad been agreed to, pledging all present to promote the sacred cause of repeal by all consti tutional means--(theers and counter-cheers)—and to adopt these 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 have forgotten the duty which they owed to the Crown.—( Cheers.) With regard to Hendrick, Mr. Kemrnis 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 eff 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 hail 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, had 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 itis place, and he did 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 lawyers 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 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 %N hiCh 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. Ho 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 Hon. 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 sessed] of a power which singly they could never have been invested with. By the law no person was held responsible fur 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 I 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 intimidating the Legislature. That was the charge, and he was astonished 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 state the Legislature, and by that means to produce a repeal of the union. It had been asked, why did you allow these meet ingstw y y did we r eyou committedno illegalhpaadrtiteliseyfonrotthese to a g c o t s o n ? they 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 ? Wh • month the House mu s t reco ll ec t t h at as f ar b ack as the hof M ay, 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 aid 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 b e 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 he 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 la3t 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 t 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 &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 cheer; 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 Hon. 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. ower. He (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-Gen era l) p rosecu t e d M r . F eargus O'C onnor f or libels and seditious meetings, MG 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 in the case of the allegation of fraud, he had only pursued the same course which he (th e Att orney -G eneral) laid down upon a similar occasion. He w ou ld as k aga i nst w h om was the alle gation of fraud di rec t e d? W as it against the sheriff, or against the agent for the Crown ? It was not stated by whom or when the fraud was com m itt e d. T he allegation on chal lenging thejury 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 be entertained 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 I do it yourself ?"—( Hear, hear.) He did not at all m ean b y this illustration to attribute anything dishonest to the agents of the traversers ; but only to bear out the assertion of his Bight Honourable and Learned Friend, that the course pursued on those trials was the same that would be observed in 'W es t m inster Hall. He sincerely hoped th a t this discussion would have the effect of soothing the feelings and enlisting the a ff ec tions of the Irish people towards Englishmen. lie responded to the sentiments expressed by Hon. Gentle men on the other side of the House, and was quite ready to agree in any remedial measures which might be proposed. On 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 ext. nsion.---( 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 religion 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 byexpressing a fervent hope that theiecoun eels adopted would be Ruch 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.—(llear, 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 vernment, or in any set of men who (lid 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 threatened. There 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 uporethem—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 most degraded and the most abject of all countries. He asked, were not these circumstances of themselves sufficient to war 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, bet 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 e 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, op era t e d 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 side 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'Connell.—( 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 he 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 ; hut 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 lion. 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 side te repre sen t a ti ves o f th a t bi go t ry . their go o d i ntentions, Hoe. Gentle men upon bon thlerisho of th e H ouse were l oo k e d p peoplether h as Say what they would , the people of I re l an d cou ld no t r id themselves of that belief. No doubt th a t a grea t num b er of u the appointments of the present Govern m e n t were m ade in a perfectly honest spirit. But what did the people say? They said, t , Aye, it is all very well for them to c l a im the reputa tion of being liberal and benevolent towards us, but all our old y the enemies in this country are in power. Ile (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 R iman Catholics ; anti there were persons living who were present at those trials, for the purpose of accusing th e m. Those parties were now in power in Ireland, and those were the persons who created so much suspicion in the minds of the Irish people. The discontent of the Irish people was well founded, and the first question that suggested itself was, whether anything could be done to relieve them from that discontent under which they laboured. Would the repeal of the legislative union do this? His answer was, that, as far as he could judge, repea l wou ld on l y 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 owe 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. It we could avoid all national antipathies, how much stronger, happier, and better we should be.—( Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Cork must have 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 either 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—slid 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 }et this would be the result of a Government of force, and such must be the Government 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 G over nment 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, and 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 marked a character as they ever were. "No surrender " was still their motto, The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Recorder of Dublin, sup 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 ; the persecution might be narrowed, but the spirit and the bigotry were there. Mr. SHAW—(emphatically) — No . Mr. ROEBUCK was not going to criticise the Hon. 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.. tarn 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 had 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 lie was perfect in his faith, but he ought to have charity for others. He (Mr. oebuek ) believed that the feeling which had been cr.sate.l by such dec asati ns as: t , emse to which he had adverted, were precisely these 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 had 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.) He 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 hail 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 forireland. 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 spiritwhich 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 nothing'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 the 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 bsok 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 L.-delay, indeed ! Why, delay was proper. It was not only justifiable to seek it where it was necessary, as in this case, for a fair trial, but it was a duty to do so. Now, he stated it plainly and broadly —and he challenged any man in the House to contradict him —that the proceedings on the part of the traverser, were perfectly fair and 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 he 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 theend ? 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 b een h ear d o f ?—( H ear , h ear .) He (Mr. 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 traversers did not get a copy of it until nearly 7. The law allowed them but four days to plead, and yet the Irish AttorneyeGeneral, 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 ease 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 he would have challenged the fraud. The Attorney- General did not do 30. 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, bear.) Rut that was not all. 'I he 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 traverser, have been worse off if he had g one back to the p ane l o f 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 with 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 have moved to discharge his own rule, to have taken a commo n j ur y, an d a ll owe d t h e traversers to have beer, tried by that. In challenging that jury he might have said— that man 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 grouted 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 taker, 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 be 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 en 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. He was not there to say whether it was fraud or accident; but it so happened, unfortunately and fatally for time 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.) Ile 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 check 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 argument, 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 th ey 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 with 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 weitiguilty, there had never been T 1:, a doubt r:s' i'. lbsy.liad pist , there, hot tsey consicttsl prissmers. N • Its. :sus fault with them. No man had said it was wrong. The ver diet 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 con'emplated ? Were they not beholden to the very man whom they had brought within 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 p eace . 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 tie 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 those 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 " Spoke," which arose on every side. Mr. O'CONNELL rose amid the most marked silence and 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 flight Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh the other evening —the greatest crimes that one country ever csmmitted 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 Hight Hon. Gentleman directly opposite, is that the fact? Why, Sir, for eighteen years before she lost her self government it is oh 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 uni o n l eg i s l a ti on.—( L oud 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 Larcam 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 snore 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.) Oh ! 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. He proposed Ca tholic Emancipation, and he offered to establish religious 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 2 —( Hear, hear.) I think that man must be the most stupid of men 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 (hanger," 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 Act of Par- Lament passed by your United Parliament was, an Act suspend ing the Habeas Corpus Act, and pro Claiming military law in Ireland—that was your first Act ; and then, when the first peti tion for Catholic Emancipation was presented, in 1800, Mr. Pitt opposed it—be 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 fur centuries. Would riot the Bight lion. and Gallant Officer opposite (Sir 11. 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 " "Ilie Church in danger" was raised.—( Cheers.) It was raised to such a dangerous extent as would now app ear incre dible. Some of th e 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 Isis 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, another 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 sheeded 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 that 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 ge ttin g as y ou wou ld of turning back h Thames to its source.—( Hear.) We would even have received ived with gratitude what wou ld th en b e considered a bountiful_ we fa vour.—( Hear, h ear .) Y ou l os t that opportunity, and again had recou rse t o our r offers, and we returned to there was nothing for us but s Y r the rejected ct-y: that u lorwelnand. resou r c es. NV e raised " Hereditary bondsmen know you not, That was Ireland's motto. We assembled together, and " Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow. That people were indignant at the offer, which were made. Eman- _ • • a . s' lans:b sa. r S'au t° r e etu ;, es , '" o Clsre. I ci l t net s him, and was return •d bv a majority of 1,99:).— , ( i , t is ISinansipation necessarily followed ; but ynu grantee!, Is t undignified way.—(Chours. ) That which you mien,' , 10 given to entraafy you yielded to necessity.—("Chee rs. srl which we would have received as a favour, was extorted'', triumph —( Cheers.) And lam proud to say that 0 0 0 '4,, atom of the insolence of triumph was shown by my a r% men.—( Cheers. ) Your union was a failure, because Ps t orte d on which it was based were fraudulent. It vrs ext superior force. You had 175,000 troops in Ireland, sa`,.e3 spent 4,275,00 W. in bribery and corruption. You care in the spirit of the sheerest dishonesty.—( Hear, hea r Yes land had 300 Members, and you left her but 1 00 . w" ,501 very lo wes t ca l cu l a ti on s h owe d th a t s h e wa s entitled toh. least. —(Hear.) When you granted the ema ncipat v° o t n o you granted it at the sacrifice of the poorer class of the 40s. freeholders, and you raised the franchise to , (Here Lord Stanley whispered something l oe i Robert Peel. I—l know what the Noble h; se: whispering at this moment, as well as if I were in .1 ts 's dente.—(Laughter. ) He is saying that I consent, t annihilation of the forty-shilling freeholders. di d i n f sent to it, for I think it was a gross injustice. On ta',Se ~ sion you raised the cry of " The Church in danger." Ts" the?. Lord will find it in my book, that I d,el not consent to c• struction of the forty-shilling freeholders. Therei.:tss. portion—l consented to abolish one part, namely , . of people who were not likely to live till a second election means of voting. I consented to the abolition or t h cause it was fraudulent, as I would consent to als °l ; s s sees, thing fraudulent wherever it existed.—( Hear, arta s s is tS But even if I did consent to their annihilation, iVs i nn s: cation of your crime that I participated in it.—( b e f a t 'i s ? and a laugh.) What was your next injustice? • Ao sta excuse, also, on account of the Protestant Church in "/30`; It is the scapegoat of all your iniquities.—( Cheers' ) . you think it secure even now ? ( Cheers.) You linsttietee privileges of the people of Ireland with r e g ard to corr form, that sou might have bulwarks and outworks o 'o l , the Protestant Church. And, at the present a l i re ire what prevents you from doing justice to Well but the Protestant Church ?—( Hear, and c heers.) ititi sl the Reform Bill followed Emancipation, and, as t„, it, consequence of it. At least I take credit for gis - S s strong support—but what did the Irish peop l e get S/ 00 S You gave eight representatives to Scotland, with only.t:hts lions of inhabitants—you gave five to Ireland with el e", lions of inhabitants.—( Hear, hear.) To every oneSrceierS counties, having a population of 50,000, you gave an t oei so of one Member ; to those with a population of 2 0 % be rtt! gave two additional Members. You gave two Me t° ll t the island of Anglesea—you did not g ive the e cn t s it ) Cork one.—( Ilear, hear.) I wrote letters newspapers, and I wrote a pamphlet, w hi c h I Pot : 1 %1 1 ' 4 hands of many Members of the Hou s e, s h ow i n g the 01 00 1 done to Ireland with regard to the numb ••r of her rePr os a' fives. If we had 150 representatives it would be i ra ,P o l:d to treat Ireland with the injustice with which shebl treated. Mayo, with a population of 35,000 i n habits,": 7 o! only 900 voters; Cork, with an agricultural populs; a l 75,000 inhabitants, has only 1,500 voters ; while p` lea a population of about 800,000, has twenty-seven rer r ot tives in this House, and 36,000 voters. Does a n y tY imagine that the Irish people are so st u P6 o tei f they will live under such a scheme of t a f t" ment as this, every preference being made aga in '? and every insult and restriction enacted against the ca rd "I Noble Lord opposite proposed a Registrati o n Bill, an to td it through two readings in this House, whi c h would " e l OS' ) effect el altogether destroying the al rea dy unite chise of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) M a ny, w" ° o ,assiS on other occasions with the Government, on this ssirl voted against them. Under these circumstances thg es al the question of the repeal. It was brought under ' l o ot in this House, only one English Member voted irt fa 0 d tali 4'2 Irish Members voted in favour of it, and 500 and °d 'ret' against us. Then a declaration was made of the deter:llo3'e so! of the Government to uphold the union, and at the ire V A " the House pledged itself to remedy the grievances °, 00 0 ,v , That pledge was made by the King, Lords, and„ u r iatile t e. and though it had not the legal effect of an Act of pa deem it might justly be considered one morally. After this4citc, lion we gave up the agitation for the repeal, or reMal u e a t esf:: for four years, but not a single grievance was r e We remained four years without stirring, in the 7 S e ; something would be done; and something was da,; e e Noble Lord's Bill passed the second reading, and went into Committee. I do not like reading &I :i t ) this House, but there is one, the reading of shorten my speech, because it contains a great cleat should otherwise be compelled to enlarge upon. I w ° '; itr el'i plore the House to observe how we have conducte d ° ro es', here. Before we took one step more towards th e ss ris t e; the union, we formed what we called the Precursor osed From that Society I presented a petition, and I °loft IV it in this House. The Honourable Member then t „ ts irj petition, which commenced as follows :—" We, the al'S',„` demand the attention of this Hon. House to our ela t ",sperr and equal justice to Ireland. Equal justice mean' " t hep' l identification of rights, privileges, and franchises forpg ple of Ireland with those enjoyed by th e people u p o st r i We respectfully, but most firmly, demand and insist ; a lo, s identification. The people of Ireland are entitled tos sit a have, an equality of political and religious freedom ~ n ot people of England. 'f They seek nothing more, they " ci a rest,r contented with anything less. The petitioners the", „ b e ir to state the grounds of their claims, and said, that ' lnt i t es t ,, sent object was to render the u n i on com pl e te an ac es os e, ; a by making it a real, i n stead o f a nominal s ell changing it from a union of parchment in t° o iss of interest s , and affections." In order to carry the n of i ,~ practical effect, they demanded, first, an eq ualisati t tritt l , elective franchise in boils countries ; secondly, a n trbitla corporate reform equal to that obtai ne d by Englailu'dsp s i, an adequate representation in Parliament; tb u , r s t otivs equalisation of r e ligious freedom w ith E ng l an d and o ,teili) " Should the prayer of our respectful p e titi o n be V .- st at s, o r, who have subscribed this petitio n , a re b oun d byin te ,7s„Sta s o good faith, not to seek for the repeal of the union. psi hear, from the Oppositi on .) I' d rew this 0d (continued the Hon. M em b er ), an d I 9 ', 0 ,14 " We tell this Hous e th a t th ere are mora l an d p h ys icat,s, in the Irish people which will hereafter cause manYLall" . : that they did not avail themselves of th e p resent orrrfor; of consolidating the union." The petition concluded 3 5 p ot S r We do loudly and firmly call on th e H ouse no t to de be t s ligion by . snaking it a cloak and an accessory to crica f tt l s el' , :, act now justly and generously toward s t h e people°, In , and to indemnify them for past opressions by gtv l° 7l 3 str ei l full guarantee for futur e freedom." I moved, upo n s its eg l tion, for an increase of the franchise. What was tal eees ol" j i My motion was seconded; it wa s opp ose d by the G ote t d then in office, and it was opposed by those who hare op 0 ,, them. I will say that that reasonable and fair offe r rot's , have been accepted, and even if it were not, sn es t ot grievances of Ireland should have been i ns tituteds. 5 5 were defeated—we were scout e d ou t o f thi s Hous e :, tlO t iit knows little of the feelings of a n I r i s h man w ho thin u si e tse, could possibly feel otherwise th an d egra d e d, if he acg s e silence in the endurance of a wrong.—(Hoar, be at "ai ,lt lest that I had the strong case of physical s tiffering, t° oo 4 o ,;ati Was it not our duty, by every constitutiona' l9 endeavour to remedy the political insult and 'y o re 'o', sufferings of our country ?—( Hear, hear.) tea / s"' more at length than I hail intended er y history of the crimes of the union since it was Pa s ; W e d / say of the follies of the union.---( Hear, bear.) f little more to say ; but, in the na me o f t h e p e ople ss e at t and Ido it expressly in their name —l must P r o' - I P r s hli ° your prosecutions.—(Cheers fr om th e O p p os ition.l 4 41 I against them ; first, on account of their nature. • , doe meetings, every one is admitted to b e l ega l ; be y stt!' peached as against law; each, separately c onsider e . ue seibl i the calendar of crime a cypher. ' But, by mu ltiplY si rty. e a , you come, bya species o f l ega l w it c h cra f t, to illes s he it e cf meeting is legal, that meeting is legal, a n a s g'S ss meeting is legal, but th ree l ega l Itte e " is eeristO one that is illegal.—(L aug ht er .) The Joss nes' Ireland will understand that r eason i ng ; y o u laar s ece",cler e e but you cannot laugh at th em w ith i mpun ity. / test is against your striking Catholics from the P' -e eec u re et t i is no doubt of the fact. There will always he a n d i the ei le°, the commission of a wrong. The Noble Lord l e pre lat, a precedent, and he quoted me to show wha,t : t eat d s %t was. I was riot in the House at the time, but 1 11 ,et aet i l e did reached me through the ordinary channels. 1° s . has charged me with having packed a CathnlicjSTirtheijeSi not perhaps use the word " packed," but . I o Tord l r beili appropriate word to convey the Noble if not the word he used, it is equally signifie, 4° ,,, es e S - s tl The Noble Lord accused me of having arraYea. '1•10 ... t ' o arl",s Catholic jury to try a Protestant gentleman. ", a r s charge, laid I admit that it is a very serious one•ibi/i000js" had no public responsibility, I had the reseg e uld t o tem every gentleman at th e ba r mus t f ee l, t hat he 5 I n ot ° h oPii his case according to the rules of solid justice, aTisearb s os t er decency and justice fur any purpose whatever. -- `,soo, o sle , ir The case was that of General Bingham' h i e to s t s P e sb Bingham, who was a politician rather tavoura" trw se ol i j of the popular party, and a distinguished o ffiee ..ith se s , , upon the high road, to enter into an altercation 7 ,c al t man, which ended in his riding his horse 14'7:: f o r t e j pushing him into a dyke. An action was brout s . l etc' e ar te It is in this case that I am charged with he° r ot the l ee jury. Now it happened that the attorneY neu eet ( t,oo o te secution was a Protestant, Mr. John, eg os s si ts t assistant counsel for the prosecution of Mr- aS e le erese e ; e s, was also a Protestant. Ido not wish to shri n ur n w s olS ei t sponsihility, direct or indirect, which may re't. ur y 0 49 Vi b e I happened to be in another Court while the i s , 3 o by and I only came into Court as the last ju , rY; as don; eq. e , sworn.—( Hear, hear.) Whatever was do ; . _...( l W i t e lS Protestant attorney and the Protestant counaefil But was it in fact a packed jury ? es that ge tholic jury?-( Hear, hear.) No ; two l'r ° „ t of high characte r were appointed °P °- pe eed/ Mr. Baker and Mr. Travers ; and it " u r o ce ° t le„) larly enough, that Mr. Travers, in con' e l the r ge'l c beer.,o taken ill, was allowed to retire, and . o! tit a Protestant magistrate, was substituted tor s ,, ing J. . . 44 1 e ), I feel as much as any one the baseness of Pa;l fere at r ii `Og s ee , persons of one religion, to try a person a of e r ' e t he ; c i °r' sY" but I think I have quite vindicated myself (Cheers.) A list has been sent to me of s o e l sots In 1838 a Catholic priest was tried for the crl...!_ n pro, A O 1 0 The jury consisted of five Catholics and se r v_r_ sie s or_c o c e ,„ What was their verdict? An immedi ni a c ; without leaving the box.—(Hear, hear.) in etiny ti o: l ot i case of sedition, hag been sent to were ten Protestants, and two Roman rsso d pr o ,, who was tried was a Catholic. The jury !"_" 11. sai sett e ie r : e without leaving the box.—( Hear, hear.) more bas i li c ciple, then, I say that there never was a e en ° ' 0010 1 7 0 0 f ' o r tion than the insinuation that ten or v e it s or anon of would perjure themselves on any account p hi O „erig Another complaint which I have to make s ag' rrhe c o r o , diminishing the jury list.—( Hear, hear.) in t he the array did not allege fraud generall I t s as striki n g sly at e '° but a particular fraud, viz., the frau ° e r audule ° b e In-the plea it was alleged that they were e we ts e. , with invent to injure the case of . th v t , ra: _P e s //c a ., whom o fer r AI torney-General for England—than with more P _ „40_ 'hear.) I was not here when It a; bee a, tleman ever conducted a prosecution w s not bere 4o o, l3 , racy and propriety—( Hear, hear) . J- _ a that p lea ,7 4 . 31 1 ,1 said that there could be no validity in , is hetn, geS> persons were named; I beg to submit t . n o t t, or o i t , „ dictment for the murder of a person unit 'T er , ss i 5 oof and as valid an indictment as if the name' it , rule ' lt end' o d n rrA .ie tbe e t n e ( Hear, hear.) One absurdity of the opPes out t he jus t od , dpeareu, s ° , l no' e er right, when fraud was alleged, an if P fraud A tter , ig ,g j b u e s ti evidentce. ( Hear, it to have courted investigation ? t triumph (°!* will, seeo.f:lese wouldhear nothear.) \ b v e o u p i o d s si not, 1.07 proved, that would have been , trial the sw o se s o t h e as e , t e pti to his mode of action, to streng n t eobser s at ion f l s ,„" r age t sa , General.—(Hear, hear.) He did wiselYo 0 , - which he pursued. I have but one the 43) 1 d c horg e se j upon this trial, and it is this. Since e 01 ,. s ide hei r, bi ds Titus Oates, there has not been a mo c r as _ . _(Het ots oj , that delivered by the judge in thi3 c le wha t :0 o u cheers from the Opposi , ion.) I have to make on the part of th ...k yo u ae And now I turn to you, and a' s as _(llea r chee r S; Ireland • o r will do for the people of etuallY " Iv d , to " s of You cannot be keeping an army peris h at wil l Y °u hen' s ' 'l oll/ that will not answer.—( Cheers.) , 11 You d° %tel t-4 troops for your colonies, or what wl noo io teo e s s of .--A" A v break Irelands?out if you maintain an army k u, w hat u_ e ch s ! lr in —( Hear.) Now, I as h y u h those -sabnAce _ 0) j v Those are thperecrorap,of ire do for Ireland ? I have learned t ro _g ee . _ t u of information from which I learned what I