The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-23 00:00:00

r~;,ls uts4l4 1 0 i ei r `r -.le l ._:.4k -~-.. _ ittililcetiios---e hopes had been disappointed, and there was no .„. hood of anything better being realised while that night l ion.Gentlein a n was surrounded by the same party . An R , on. Gentleman opposite had said that the people of l e ., rel nd were glad of the presence of the soldiery, be upendneach soldier spent 55. day there—that put him in °f all old song, the burden of which was " lle s half-a-crow n out of sixpence a day."—( Laughter.) uot, allovvinn• the Hon. Gentle'sstatement to be trtrue, did not6that mo w ney, hich m an sweme , from th. notber of t o x in Irel an d , amounted to upwards of a million and tn sterling, Cottle out of the pock e t s o f th e people of gland.? There had been no reduction of the military or naval force in Ireland.—(Hear, hear, from Sir R. Peel.) 6 17 e said this Was only an Irish question, but that he e l edi for enormous expense was entailed upon the peopletoward:fiEngland by the system of misrule pursued t Ireland. The Right Hon. Baronet said he Mi.o hold Ireland by military occupation, but by the nistration of the laws in the trial by jury. Was 20,000Pr7er Way to support trial by jury to pour ender roops into the country ? When Ireland was wit er the Government of Lord Normanby, although he w a st hwarted in his good iatentions, he did much good, and p et , ' 4 "Ply and gratefully appreciated by the Irish Pl. It o n the was on that ground he deplored the situa- Le Government placed itself in. If they gave Ire- CA lair constituti ona l pr i v il eges they m i g h t w i t hd raw . h tr _ lorie to-m orrow. H e w i she d that t h e N o bl e th g e.G`umade his moti on a di rec t vo t e o f censure on ove rement. At a ll events h e l oo k e d on i t i n th at h ite 4 li t, a and as such he should vote for it. He did not b leu : to move an amendment that s h ould p l ace the P te r in that respect out of all doubt.—(Sir Robert trot It ja not too late.)—(Laughter.) No, he should lat e e 121 " e such an amen d men t as a t th a t t ut ;!° ll r . he did not wish t o pl a y Marplot.—(Laughter.) si oul "e wished this sid e o f t h e H ouse were more unani the i z wi,th regard t o Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He wished he le Mover of the resolution had told them what th e 6 - ' l, Prepared to do. Would he settle the question of that ? Would h e ex t en d th e su ff rage ? B u t, on the • • they were no t t o h ave "fi na li ty ," even on pri43of side.—(Hear, hear.) Would he give the ii e °f Ireland a fair share of every civil • ? If he was not prepared to do all this, tofpite;eiTeee they of be m y en would be of no use. It was a change wanted, not a change of men. He wanted onlyhtd ti Union really effected, for till this moment it li t h o been a union of party not of the people. .He the re he • t h,e Right Hon. Baronet was not present during aolee t tas which he made on his Government, and he Ithjuittherefore repeat them. He had said that it was Irel e „, i t° the people o f E ng l an d, un j us t t o th e p eo pl e o f Ile 1;1 a nd unwise w ith regar d t o th e w h o l e na ti on . ret h ,,ted the Ri ght Hon. Gentleman would bear those lier: 4 in_ mind, an d re fl ect en them, when he laid hi.i litr ‘von the pillow. —(Laughter.) t he 1 4us ,' A. HAMILTON said it was desirable that ttep opi utord and Tenant Commission should make its la ki n - a ils - 3 20n as possible. But the House should bear "Ilea the great labour attending suck an inquiry, *se & ,":" heard that one half of the farms in Ireland fst k ," Y luer five acres in extent ; that five out of six were under 15 acres, that half of the families the rural population were living in the lowest tl t& '°f destitution in cabins, not having more ire Oil. Mein ; that 68 per cent. of the far ?gee ~w ere without ca pit a l, k no wl e dge, or land. h e ate the statements of the census of 1841. Now, ...cota ki ,...ett the great advantage resulting from the , 41 rto o.° ll , Would be the effect which the evidt nee neap e 'bie it would have on public opinion. It was IteXten cd rrious that, to have that effect, evidence must ritiewnsively taken, and the Report deliberately con siooe-"' Re could assure the Mouse, that the Commis aei t r t s . were determined to probe matters to the bottom, Ire make known t o h er M a j es t y t h e s t a t e o f thi ngs °ths t The Ho n . M em b er f or B e lfa s t, an d so me 'N. t oo ". Memb ers , h a d i nt i mate d t h at t h e C omm i ss i on atto r , much of a l an dl or d C omm i ss i on, b ut h e cou ld k ot„, t ?louse that the Commissioners were top „1 1 °Its to receive e v idence from the class r and they had also taken steps to 011.41" 'local evidence taken on the spot. The of ex e i,einher for Roscommon had said that a good deal 4 4%th `ernent had been caused by this Commission, and t,„eit eh , l : ° °kl disappoint public expectation. But that bee i t Lnt did not originate with the Commissioners. Felffie adopted every means of putting before the tesit iu ..'ne reel objects of inquiry, and had taken every Pess ep ,„,' to prevent the supposition that they were em- Pree & - V 0 Settle disputes between parties. He then t ,resp ect ed`to notice the conduct of the Government, with 1 e l " t° tfte- repeal agitation. With regard to the de tosa_444ttlng down the excitement, he had heard t aeti o , l 37a rn ati t. orfof the Government with very great satis- Zatt, h,,,'"e Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of " 41. 11 -"` gi:tan a conclusive explanation ov of that delay, thougnt that the conduct of the Gernment with sae, _to that agitation was marked with great forbear . t tu e e tAntion, wisdom, and firmness. He believed t alk, .e "le Protestants in Ireland, and those of the Ro ,,reed 4 b "lolies most worthy of consideration, were ;Leit sm „ "4ePealers, or utterly opposed to it. The it os ell , t , of last year was a forced excitement, the result of a deep discontent. Even in for of „,War, he should be under no apprehensio .. n . `oleto the ) of his countrymen, who would be still ,_Ve& Preserve Ireland for the Queen, and would be kfe t t e ? resist all the efforts of foreign or domestic foes. Nie e t i eed that the Government had resorted to the , 'keest..-T,POWers of the law, and had not asked for any eotitatiranal powers. He hoped they would still edou t 7le thee polio and if they did so, and with it tootiilareasur se of impr ovement , t h e ag i tat i on wou ld Aehi "'nbsid 6 . - o f e• and Ireland would cease to be the battle -0-"„ wi t r hrties in ti House. With respect to the Ireland, the esSeech of the Noble Lord the Se -ro 'or the Colonies would be highlysatis factory to the lto tt p B ,„,, t4ll ,ta of Ireand. He contended it was the duty k , hristian State to maintain a religious estab 41 ` 1 1 -4.11 t• Re should not inquire on what greetndsth o e f thiettunt religi o n had been selected as the . religion an _ It tate. It was sufficient for him that it was 0, t a their duty to bring within the reach of the Pe,!?_ e great truths which that religion contained. He Ikoot believ e that the Catholics of Ire , 'eh any was grievances in that the religion ~llitt• State was rocognised and supported as such. .Itt principle was .recognised, the maintenance of a f lu on could not be Gaged on the proportion of the Xls4l4ta, professing it. That this principle must be ap -I,ll,,,,Within reasonable Limits . H e was prepare d t o wasthat the Ch urch in Ir:eland was not a rich Church. n th income of the beneficed clergy , in Ireland At OOt 4 °Ye 216/. The number of benefices in Ireland t • 1 1400 Ide t / and if the Protestant . population was 'lags "long them, it would give an average e hint - Of 600 each ; and was the amount F ive stated too much for an educated and - es. ? Regarding_ England_ as a great empire, 74 oUgh ''sr ally that flit across the page of history, he t she had been raised to power for some higher t ut s: 144 Z til , the promotion of transient . interest. He ;;: g teipi "e was the depository of the highest and best riat e ,„ et 'tie had nt 'tied, and would continue to Id t t i. lei t Z i enr . ; if she i did . ai not, like other empires, CALF w to her original insignificance. o . ( s t POWELL said, with - respect to the con t. Ni lo tate prosecutions, they had excited distrust all Ireland. The proceedings had placed 1( bee n ' ti nts in the most invidious position. They t rnade the meitins of convicting the most pop?. ttell that 00% had ever, lived in Ireland, or, perhaps, in 0 th e "llitry. So far from the prosecution putting l'Post..l4ttation, it would perpetuate it. He should Sir I re a :ka ti 1 "--4 b diVGLAS, after some observations which tk &k Y re &n . a. said he believed that Ireland had, in t nit ti° n, ts as regarded trade, manufactures, . and . se ti l. Tien treated with great liberality and gene tett,,_l!tore-1. ineoMe-tax afforded an instance of this dee kn.: 'was inconsistent to delay any longer , th "t i t of agitation for the repeal of the union by t h , 4 Pee - g ,1 44 of the law. He had before stated that van t e eel arrd loved Ireland; notwithstanding that, N'es:tititti n 'oe that the great master curse of Ireland t s t kV i locio Z Re thought the Government did not t v toro - ,l"gh; *but he gave them full credit for actd &,, k ile ti- t tand eeTectually at what they considered ss' h s t o te - 7 6 . -- .-(lle,tr, hear.) He had heard attri -`ln in tiles* House fiendish intentions, 11 4 % &3 711• - their delaying the proclamation. V. the' that their' conduct irresistible.—(Hear, merciful, Preparations' is- s ere . _ s :yat t i s at, hk gteat, py ess i ng er a e ,:of Ireland were, in his ekas-:Yaical ased social ; an d impartial measures L'et o ,lal thein • Men must re ,:ilaimed from that th t- ' SOCial nine Irish were, kl e v w Co which . . Chdd be ciiioablepolitical pri t;.l4o i &t. lo: 4 „._ Et graled with the Noble Lord the Member . of exercising nia ttot rai s * 'gat, they should direct their chief attention • eth t ee, ssittfle condition of the Irish population . by ru e . krts , mechanics, the learned professions. Ve h 1 3 of SOdi 1 advancement. 'rho struggle &„_ a 1 , all: pa r I going forward was intended to restore is',l tad who had never done any good for te t pared yuaa Were incapable of doing any. He t aek 4 t4 ,_ th e le _ t b 3 Concede everythin whic w h . could be seßst #4l 0)4 4 - "anon Catholics consistent . ith safety 1 %6 _44 .114 % 1 41g ..thChurch and the Constitution. Not 1t017:43, i.n .°ll, i t, „iv e clamour that was raised for a . repeal kk q e, th e 1 , as nevertheless certain that the Irish v e ie. their . 41 Perie.1 Parliament had more power to 4 41 , 1 1111, i3 , rlev es than m en o f th e sam e stamp would affs /t ait: ).c ar ; tl 't I tliament. He repeated now what he ts t `4, l 4 & e(l 3' v s‘ ...!utt agitation should be put down before o PI '°Posed fer the grievances of Ireland, 14 - at v e ded that the best course for a Coni tlf& ‘tra , ant to adopt was on the cessation of all tit r e : t t i pl ate d r y : i : t an s n e din l e f egs affectionately andin t etil el et "le real to.se subjeote of complaint earnestwhieh tk444 't he of Ireland. t r• Veh PooPle of Ireland would ever v er scoutedaid 0174 bonne , a u n q• the differences might be thatwould t 4 th il Ntti k i end to th of a foreign foe would at 44 4, 11` r th e n 1 : and, in proof of this, he need k enek on `lo.orie f the opposition the Irish offere 11 11- to th e ; 'lair att, smpting to land in that country • ti pre fo. 1798. There was only one t Nswgelis t We& id ol the he It 'ished to refer before he 4 0 7 W ho i r tthe speo k 1 h of the Noble Lord (John 1 14 14 i l , th"tleed 'us motion, injudicious as it V o _ t ted h ate tr g 141 11 More is sjudicious one of the Noble tle..aer - t th e e u r for Sunda le:and (Howick), but that de so11). IXemb er for Roscommon (The '640 Ile 1 the inhabitants of the a m ote lt " et a t u to 1 L eal ' eti uPol -ie . Pre Dire. °°- so upo n ach other as to make . 11.4rj 11 11 nYthi n g m ore beautiful, anything th re bleb ‘ .1.1() t be su g geste d ; and if that speech Ough t he people in that brotherly ts l - 1 eer_ ellipir .6 ut to be " Lor th en ' ihedistings - fishing feature of ,' trot eth s uoti d, should. he consider that 41 10.: 1 1 : 4 ,.. 1) ad o' one a degree of 4f. th en Pe i'otn _it. good he th t°B e, and addressed the House as 1 (li d net 3 4t e rttb, e of the Ci se last *night at the conclusion t dot -eY ;%rie e r ," - ; ' 4 . g. nom as d Learned Gentleman .tps or Ireland, for two reasons—the ° Decei t .' faf the 114 * 1 10 0. and Learned sc....dewan did not terminate till nearly midnight, and I despaired of rivetting the attention of the House at so late au hour ; the next, that I was anxious he should afford the the opportunity of looking into the case he referred to, and in which I was engaged fifteen years ago, as the details of that case were obliterated from my memory, and I wished to look into the report of it, on purpose to vindicate myself in regard to the serious charge which has been brought against me.— (Hear, hear.) I applied at the conclusion of his address to the Right Hon. Gentleman for that book, and he, with great courtesy, at once lent it to me. The House must, last evening, have been under the impression, from the expressions of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the individual referred to had been tried by a packed jury. —(Hear, hear.) That word packed was used, and as I was one of the counsel engaged in the prose cution that word must have been meant to apply to me. —(Cheers.) It was said at all events distinctly that I had exercised the prerogative of the Crown entrusted to me on that occasion by the sanction of the law officers of the Crown, for the purpose of placing upon the jury twelve men the most opposed in religion to the person about to be put upon his trial. The Right Hon. Gentle man stated that he was present on that occasion. He was present. He was one of the regular prosecutors in the case, and I think he will do justice to me when I say, that my conduct on that occasion was not the subject of censure either from the law officers of the Crown, who superintended my conduct, or of the advisers of the pri soner.---7(Hear.) I say that no cognisance was taken by the Crown, and that fis the prisoner did not complain, nor his counsel, there is no ground for reproof of my conduct.—(Cheers.) On that occasion the course which I took, the prisoner being charged with murder, was this. The Crown had 20 challenges—acting for the Crown, I had the right to set aside twenty persons without assigning any cause, and he (the prisoner) exercised his right, his undoubted right of setting aside also.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I was anxious fo "have a mixed jury. —(Loud cheers.) I was anxious to carry into effect the principles which have uniformly guided me in this House, in Courts of Law, everywhere, and on every occasion, of religious tolerance and perfect impartiality. (Loud cheers.) Finding that Roman Catholics were challenged by the pri soner, in the pursuance of my duty I challenged a sufficient number of Protestants. The result was, that there were seven Catholics and five Protestants called, and afterwards another was added by consent of both parties.—(Cheers.) The truth is, there had been an agreement before between both parties that the jury shouldle composed of six of each religious persuasion. In page'69o of the Report of the Trial, which, by the courtesy of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, I hold in my hand, is the address which, on that occasion, I made to the jury, and I am sure the House will excuse me if, in my desire to lay this matter fairly before it, I read one or two extracts from it of a somewhat lengthy character.—(Hear, hear.) The report is, I admit, most faithfully drawn up. It was drawn up at the time of the trial by Mr. Brewster, of the Leinster Circuit, and who is at present the law adviser to the Castle.—(The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman here read a long quotation from the address, which called strongly upon the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of every doubt which might arise in their minds as to his guilt.) I now ask, when I consented to another juror, and when I ad dressed the jury in such language as this, whether it is not enough to prove that whilst I was anxious to do my duty on the one hand, I was anxious on the other not to bear unfairly on the prisoner, but to give to him every chance of proving his innocence I—(Cheers.) But I trust the House will permit me to 'read another extract, to satisfy it that I am not actuated by any blood hound instinct—(Cheers)--yes, blood-hound was the word— against the person then upon his trial. (Loud cheers.) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Smith) used the words, in describing my conduct against a man tried for his life, and he put an emphasis on the expression which did not escape the House; and I did think that he wished to` convey—l trust a most involuntary but certainly a very egregious misapprehen sion of the conduct which on that occasion I adopted. —(Cheers.) (The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman read another very long passage of his speech on the occasion alluded to, in which he implored the jury, if they be lieved there was any misapprehension on the prisoner's mind as to the word " Fire," instantly to acquit him.) lie proceeded—l think I have satisfied the House, and even the Right Honourable and Learned Gentle man himself, that on the occasion he has so triumphantly referred to, I did not avail myself of any Prerogative but what my position required me to do, and that I did not evince any spirit which deserves cen sure from any man.—(Loud cheers.) I have thus ex plained the reasons for my conduct, and the result. If he• (the Irish Attorney-General) had followed the example which on that occasion I gave—if he, in the constitution of the jury in the recent trials in Dublin, had allowed five Roman Catholics and seven Protestants —(Loud cheers)—had he allowed two Roman Catholics—nay, even one to remain, I think he would not only have followed a more merci ful, but, I think, he would have followed a much more judicious course.—(Great cheering.) That he might have done so I think I shall be able to show in the course of the observations which I feel it my duty to make, and that without violating any rule of pro priety, or exceeding j the bounds of fair discussion. — (Hear, hear.) The jury that sat in Dublin was com posed of twelve Protestants; but the House had not yet been apprised that eight of that jury had invariably voted against Mr. O'Connell on the several elections when he was a candidate for that city.—(Loud cheers.) No doubt they had a perfect right to vote against him, and he blamed them not for it; but when he found them on the jury he could not help stating the fact to the House. But, in fact, there is a double charge ; first, the exclu sion of every Roman Catholic ; and next, the introduc tion of eight persons who, if they were not personal op ponents of, were politically hostile to, Mr. O'Connell. Allusion had been made to Mr. Thompson, a wine-mer chant, and some doubt had been entertained with regard to the fact of his having seconded a resolution in the Corporation on the subject of repeal. The resolution, after a certain preamble, was this :—" We are deter mined to support and maintain by every means in our power the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland." There was another gentleman, of still more marked politics than Mr. Thompson, and he seconded the resolution. I find in Saunders' News Letter of the 14th of February, 1840, that a great meeting of Protestants had been convened by the Lord Mayor, at which a resolution was come to for the pur pose of petitioning the Imperial Parliament. This meet ing was held in the King's Rooms. Mr. Jones at that meeting said, " Whilst the great agitator, the disgrace and scourge of Ireland, is now endeavouring to secure Papal ascendancy, I call upon you, by every considera tion of character and of religion, to stand by our prin ciples. Let our motto continue to be, as it always has been, ' Protestant ascendancy in Church and State, and no surrender ;'" and then followed loud and long conti nued cheering, with shouts of " No surrender."— (Cheers.) Then the High Sheriff, Mr. Falkner, who was on the late jury, proposed the third resolution, the effect of which was, that they had heard with deep alarm that a Bill had been _introduced into Parliament relating to the Municipal Corporations of Ireland, by which it was proposed to transfer the franchise to other hands than those to which it justly belonged. That gentleman on another occasion, when he was a candidate for the office of sheriff, made a speech, which was reported on the 13th of April, 1839, in Saunders' Letter, and in the Evening Mail of the same day. In that speech he said, " Protestant ascendancy must be upheld, and I shall always be ready to give the charter toast as cordially and as emphatically as it has ever been given." Mr. Hinde said, " What charter toast do you mean ?" and Mr. Falkner said, " Need you ask me ? I mean the glorious and immortal memory of William the Third." Now I say, ought not that man to have been struck off the jury ? I think, if the House will con sider all the facts of this case when they look at the variety of circumstances which con cur in throwing light upon it—they will come to the conclusion that the jury were not qua lified to give a verdict in the case. I think that Mr. O'Connell should have begun his speech in ad dressing the jury in the words of the unfortunate Louis. " I look for judges, but I behold none but accusers here." —(Cheers.) My opinion is, that if a verdict was legitimately obtained in this case—if the law of conspi racy was not strained—if by fair mettns and through a proper jury, you obtained a victory over the leader of a Catholic people, then you the Attorney-General for Ireland, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Secretary for the Colonies may legitimately indulge in the exultation which your speeches have exhibited. But if, on the other hand, the victory was not fairly obtained—if you adhered to the forms of justice, but in fact violated it—if a plot--no, he would say, if a project had been concocted in the Home-office, by which an ostensible connivance was to be shown with respect to monster meetings, seditious harangues, and inflammatory newspaper publications, for a period of nine months, all led by a political antagonist;—and, if foully or fortuitously—for whether foully or for tuitously the result must be just the same—a consider able portion of the jury list was suppressed, and the defendants were deprived of the benefit of the Act of Parliament which was introduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government in this country, for he has the merit of introducing it into this country, and upon which Mr. Justice Perrin, one of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, in the trial at bar, delivered his opinion—if a sectarian jury were empanelled, for the purpose of trying a man whowas accounted as their libe rator by the Irish Catholic people, I say that so far from its being a cause of exultation, I think the victory you have obtained will ultimately be as detrimental to the victors as it is now fatal to the vanquished.—(Cheers.) It may leave a deep feeling of animosity, and will be followed by retribution, slow indeed, but fearful. I shall now advert to the form of the Privy Council, be cause the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland adverted in this House, at the eorrimenopment of the debate, when I was unable to attend, being confined in Ireland by in disposition—the Noble Lord adverted to an observation me in the COurt of Queen's Bench. He said— butwhat he did say—he said that I made h by e was represented mgt itiaastwn in an insult W the Catholics of Ireland, that Mr. Blake and Chiefßarom Brady were not summoned to the Privy Council. What I said was that the uniform usage iu Ireland, until this occasion, was to summon every a tl s ie fo r r r t i l v te y fi C r o s u t n t c im il e ; d b e u p t ar u te p d on fr t o l m ns , a o n cc d as th io a n t. memberti a r t Blake,ru l rule casion, although he !had been summoned before to the a Roman Catholic, wa s excluded on that oc ' oin t i e r d e l t a o n d t h e n a ti d i g e ia fiPerdivoymCeoeunocfil.C'hllielfr. IBtelamk e e m w br a a s nc ap er p of an—and Mr. Blake never by II Ireland took part in the violent Conservative states n—appointed by Lord W ellesle y , the statesman -and proceedings was agitated. After he was at a meeting at not Charlemont-house — after , and before, you ex: chided him from the Privy Council.—(Cheers.) The facCof his being in the habit of attending the Privy Council shows that he was not a violent politician, for no man ever attended the Privy Council in Dublin if he was inveterately hostile to the existing Government. I stated that it was to be regretted—l said no more than this—l said that it was to be regretted that on that oc casion you had departed from the rule—which you have admitted you did—and that on that occasion you excluded Roman Catholics who were not supposed to be exceedingly hostile to you. And I further added— and I hope I made the observation without any personal disrespect, for I did not intend it—that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin, by whom the jury list was to be revised, and it was an untoward circumstance, had been summoned to the Privy Council, from which Roman Catholics were excluded.—(Cheers.) I don't think I have misrepresented the statement of the Noble Lord. I do not think that I have mistated the facts now. May I venture to say this—l think that if Mr. Blake had been upon the Privy Council, he would have sug gested to you, on the Friday when you met, the pro priety of immediately drawing up the proclamation, and of posting it up, at once, thereby avoiding that fearful ha zard which, through the instrumentality of Mr. O'Con nell, you have just cause to rejoice did not result in misfortune. The observation of my Right Hon. Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, I think, is entitled to great weight. The Clontarf meeting was announced for three weeks. You waited until the Friday before the Sunday upon which the meeting would be held, and then you summoned the Privy Council. You came to a decision and you drew a proclamation which might have been contained in two lines. I have the proclamation here, and I am sure that it did not require any peculiar me ditation, for it does not exhibit any great accuracy. — (Laughter.) This proclamation was got up under the peculiar care of the Noble Lord. I certainly must say, that it is a matter of some surprise, that you should meet on the Friday—when you determined on the pro clamation, and not put it up immediately. You waited until Saturday afternoon, when the no tice could not have been conveyed to the nu merous multitude who were to assemble at Clon tarf— multitudes, however, which were prevented from coming to a scene which might have been one of contest and bloodshed, but for the pacific interposition of Mr. O'Connell, who proved to you on that occasion, what he had said over and over again, that he would obey the law, and that if they sent a single constable to the meetings that would induce him to obey. I can not refrain from expressing my wonder that after that proclamation had been issued—that after your object had been obtained, that of the prevention of the monster meetings—l cannot but wonder that 'you did not rest there. I do not see what further purpose you had to attain, for the meetings of the Repeal Asso ciation were:held in comparative obscurity. If you succeeded in your object in suppressing these meetings, why did you institute these prosecutions? I should rather ask you, why did you not prosecute—not for conspiracy, but for holding unlawful assemblages, and for seditious language—for seditious publications for a period of nine months before?—(Cheers.) The procla mation stated that at several meetings language of a seditious and inflammatory nature had been ad dressed to persons there assembled, calculated and in tended to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of her Majesty's subjects, and to bring into contempt and hatred the Government and institutions of the country, &c. Now, does not the question at once pre sent itself, that if that seditious language was employed for so long a period as nine months, why did you not stop it before?—(Cheers.) Why did you not prosecute such articles as this which I hold in my hand, published so far back as the Ist of April, 1843? You might have proceeded by criminal information or by indictment. You might have proceeded for the publication of this poem in the Nation newspaper, which her Majesty's At.. torney-General, in addressing the jury, declared to be a poem of a seditious character. The poem was entitled the " Memory of the Dead," and the Right lion. Gen tleman, the Attorney-General, read it to the jury in the most emphatic and solemn manner. I will read the poem: — Who fears to speak of Ninety-Eight ? Who blushes at the name ? When cowards mock the patriots' fate, Who hangs his head for shame? He's all a knave, or half a slave, Who slights his country thus ; But a true man, like you, man, Will fill your glass with us. We drink the memory of the brave, The faithful and the few— Some lie far off beyond the wave, Somesleep in Ireland, too ; All—all are gone—but still lives on The fame of those who died ; All true men, like you, men, Remember them with pride. Some on the shores of distant lands Their weary hearts have laid, And by the stranger's heedless hands Their lonely graves were made ; But, though their clay be far away Beyond the Atlantic foam— In true men, like you, men, Their spirit's still at home. The Attorney-General added, this poem was made in order to excite the minds of the people, and that it was a specimen of an entire volume of seditious matter, which was calculated to excite discontent and disaffec tion. If this be a true description of the poem—it was published on the Ist of April, and a series of com• positions of the same class had been published weekly for several months (Hear, hear) if this poem had the tendency imputed to it by the Attorney-Gene ral, is it not a very natural question to ask, why were not proceedings taken against the man who published that poem, and the more especially if it had the evil influence attributed to it by the Attorney-General ? My answer to it is this—you had predetermined to prosecute for a conspiracy—you had connived at these meetings, and at the publication of poems of this class, for you suffered these poems to appear day after day in the newspapers. If you suffered those meetings to be held, until, according to your bill of par• ticulars, ninety-one of them had taken place—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—you allowed those newspapers to proceed in their career—to run a race among them selver—until the editors competed with one another in exciting the popular passions. And what, then, did you do ? You did not prosecute the author of those poems —you did not prosecute the man whose name was at tached to some of those compositions. Oh ! no. The article, the " Duty of a Soldier," was published in the Nation newspaper ; the name of the writer was added to it—the writer was a priest in Waterford—the Rev. John Power—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches) —but you never prosecuted him. To this moment he has escaped with perfect impunity—he was present at the trial—he saw the men tried for the offence which he himself had committed, and he returned to Waterford perfectly safe and unmolested.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear" from the Opposition.) But you gave the article in evidence against Daniel O'Connell, who had not written it—(Hear, hear)—who had no cognizanbe of it, and no communication whatever with the writer. You gave that article in evidence against him— (Renewed and vehe ment cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition) — you joined in the offence the editors of three newspapers—you gave in evidence against O'Connell every article published in those newspapers in 1843. Was this a legitimate proceeding , ? (Loud cries of " Bear, hear.") Were the observations of the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester justifiable in that re gard ? Has there been a precedent for such proceedings? —(Hear, hear.) Has there been an instance of a man indicted for conspiracy, and joined with the editors of newspapers, and every article in those newspapers given in evidence against him?--(Loud cries of " Hear, heat") You might tell me that mode of proceeding should be adopted if there is no other way of punishing those editors ; but could not they have been prosecuted in the ordinary manner? Could not these publications have been stopped ? Could not these channels, through which sedition was disseminated, have been closed up ? Therefore we charge you with having—in the words of the Attorney-General—with having stood by with hav ing laid in wait to entrap these men.—(Bear, hear.) If you did not encourage, at least you connived very strangely at these proceedings ; and then, when your purpose was accomplished, you fell upon the man whom you had inclosed within your toils.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I now (said the Right Hon. Gentleman in a solemn and marked tone of voice) come to a trans action which the Attorney-General for Ireland will per mit me to say has been—l don't like to use the phrase, " wilful misrepresentation," but I wish to convey to this House the knowledge of a transaction which must be regarded as a most singular—most remarkable—most conspicuous omission by the Attorney-General. The House heard that Right Hon. Gentleman, last night, speak of the conduct pursued against Mr. Bond Hughes. lie is a reporter—No, a shorthand-writer, attached to Mr. Gurney's office, aid I believe him to be a gentleman of undoubted ability. He was sent to Ireland for the purpose of reporting the Mullaghmast meeting. The Attorney-General said that Mr. Hughes was se lected as an object of persecution, and.that the town was placarded with denunciations of this Mr. Bond Hughes, so that even those Roman Catholics who voted in favour of the appropriation clause could not be more strongly denounced than he was. The Attorney-General added that this was the conduct pursued by Mr. O'Connell and his associates with respect to Mr. Hughes, and that this was one of the motives of the Government for pressing O'Connell with so much keenness. The Attorney-General further said, that he re gulated his proceedings by the manner in which Mr. Hughes had been persecuted by the discredit able and immoral course pursued in reference to that gentleman. The Attorney-General did not state, and I ' am surprised that he did not, that Mr. Hughes himself acknowledged that he made two mistakes in his affidavit—in the sworn informations upon which a warrant was founded and issued against Mr. Barrett, the proprietor of the Pilot newspaper, whom it was of the utmost consequence to fasten and chain with Mr. O'Connell.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") There was no person but Barrett and the Irish prosecutors. In his paper the article entitled the " Duty of a Soldier," was published. Mr. Bond Hughes swore informations, in which he stated that he saw Barrett twice at the meet ings in Dublin. He never did see him at any meeting in Dublin,—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") He stated what was untrue, but which I believe was not inten tionally false—(Hear, hear)—but which, as we knew nothing of him, as we could not search his conscience, as we had heard no explanation from the Crown—as we had no explanation from himself until the trial, all we knew was, that he had sworn to that which was not the fact.(Renewed cries of " Hear, hear.") And then an incident took place which has not been mentioned by the Attorney-General, but which shall be mentioned in this House, and which will, I think, produce upon men of all parties no ordinary sensation. If I shall be con tradicted ociim i e n n documents 1 1 e $P. W e i t m h e wnthch I cg liamabovli about to make, t l e have it.— the (Hear, hear, from the Oppositi o n.) M. Hughes, in his first examination, stated certain things. I entreat the Attorney-General to interrupt me, if I deviate in a single particular from the exact facts he ought to have I auticipattd the cli4,ologio of to the Lbuse.—(Hearr, hear.) Mr. Bond Hughes said he went to the house of Judge Burton, to correct an affidavit. He lodged an other information—mind that—in which there was no reference to Barrett. He went to Judge Bur ton's house for the purpose of correcting an information there he saw Barrett. When he saw him, he immediately said, " I did not see that person at the meeting."—" I have sworn that which was not a fact." lie saw:Mr. Wray and spoke to him — Wray is the clerk to the Crown solicitor—told him of the mistake he had made in his affidavit, and requested him to correct it. What did Wray say— what did be do—did he get the information corrected ? No. There was no correction, and Mr. Bond Hughes, when asked upon the trial what reply Wray made to his request, said he did not remember what Wray said. Bond Hughes saw Mr. Kemmis, and said to him " I have made a mistake in my information—what shall I do?—I stated that which was not true." What did Wemmis do—was there a new information prepared? —was the old statement amended ? No, A warrant against Barrett had been granted, and that warrant was not to be recalled.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) Lest you should think or imagine for a moment that I am wantonly impeaching the character of this immaculate Crown Solicitor — (Laughter)—who charged us with tampering with M'Grath, the Roman Catholic official—(Hear, hear) — with tampering with a man who is at this moment in the employment of the Government—(Hear, hear)—l will read to you the statement of Mr. Bond Hughes, which the Attorney-General, I suppose, thought did not bear at all upon the subject—Bond Hughes, a perjurer ! Oh ! monstrous ! He denounced the persecution of this individual, but he did not think it at all relevant to com municate it to the House.—(Hear, hear.) It was on his cross-examination by Mr. M'Donough that the fact came out; it did not appear in the direct examination. Hughes swore to what happened at the Mullaghmast meeting, and made out the case against O'Connell. But not a word about the mistake made by Hughes as to Barrett—one of the men whose liberty was at stake. Not a syllable did the At torney-General ask Hughes about Barrett. The Crown had no curiositylon the subject.—(Laughter, and cries of" Hear, hear.") It would have been an act of supererogation to have touched upon any unfortunate misapprehension of Mr. Hughes ; but upon his cross examination by the subtle Mr. M'Donough the matter was elicited. I will read from an indisputable authority an extract from the cross-examination by Mr. M'Do nough. The paper is called in Dublin the Recorder of Public Opinion:— " Mr. M‘Donough—You have taken -various opportu nities of correcting your statements ? Mr. Hughes—l have taken some. " Mr. M'Donough—(Having seen the information) You have not named Mr. Barrett. Was he there? Mr. Hughes—l made a mistake about him on a former occa sion; he was not present. I took the earliest oppor tunity of correcting that mistake. " Mr. M'Donough—Then I presume that he did not speak there 1 Mr. Hughes—He did not. " Mr. M'Donough—When you were under examina tion by the Solicitor-Genera!, he asked you nothing about the dinner at the Rotunda? Mr. Hughes—He asked me nothing about it. "Mr. M'Donough—Was Barrett there? Mr. Hughes —No; Barrett was not there. I mistook somebody else for him. " Mr. M'Donough—l think you stated you took the earliest opportunity of correcting the mistake ? Mr. Hughes—l did so when I was at the house of Judge Burton. " Mr. M‘Donough—You saw Barrett at the house of Judge Burton, and perceived your mistake ? Mr. Hughes—l did. Mr. M‘Donough—Did you amend the mistake then with regard to Barrett? Mr. Hughes—l did not, but I did with reference to the Rev. Jr. Tierney. I dis covered my mistake with reference to Barrett, and men tioned it to Mr. Wray, the clerk to Kemmis. " Mr. M‘Donough—What did Kemmis say? Mr. Hughes—l can't recollect what Kemmis said. " Mr. M‘Donough—When did you mention this to Mr. Kemmis? Mr. Hughes—l have already said that I mentioned it at Judge Burton's house." And in answer to further questions, Mr. Hughes again said that Mr. Kemmis made no observation when he told him of the mistake. Mr. Kemmis made no observation—that man Bond Hughes, whose character was so impeached, and whose conscience was so disturbed, yet Kemmis made no observation about it.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) Bond Hughes, one of the principal witnesses for the Crown, had made two statements on his oath, which turned out to be untrue, and yet Kemmis made no observation, and made no attempt to remedy the mistake.—(Renewed cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) No, the mistake was left uncorrected, the matter was left as it was, the informations were known to be false—they were left so. " Did you make a mistake in the Christian name of the Rev. Mr. Tierne which you subsequently corrected ? Mr. Bone Hughes —Yes. Was there any correction made in the case of Mr. Bar rett ? Mr. Bond Hughes—No. I merely men tioned it." Now the House must recollect that the Solici tor-General had been guilty of such a sin of omis sion as that which I mentioned just now—and in the newt place the House will I think not be astonished tkat the Attorney-General made that accusation against Mr. O'Connell, that he had said Mr. Bond Hughes mentioned the matter to the Crown- Solicitor, to rescue himself from the result of the pro secution.---(Cheers.) Oh ! Sir, last night the Attorney- General thought he had made out his case,—(Cheers and laughter.) It was a matter of great joy and con gratulation, the manner in which he thought he had ex plained those points. But, Sir, I hope the House will bear in mind that those gentlemen who charged me with the corruption of M'Grath—who charged me with per suading I,l 4 Grath to act with treachery—the House will remark that those gentlemen, so liberal upon this accu sation against us, and, to use a common phrase, so anxious to turn the tables on us by calumny, have them selves, in these transactions, adopted the course which I describe, and respecting which it is not now my intention to speak--(Loud cheers.) The indictment had been sent up, the bills had been found, and the names of the wit nesses on the back of the indictment were demanded by the defendants. That was a most reasonable applica tion. Such an application in this country—this country, united with Ireland (and I hope long to be united to that country in equal rights and privileges); Ireland, that country which Honourable Gentlemen opposite professed to be united in a perfect equality, and liberty—l say in England the invariable practice has been to furnish to the traversers the names which were on the back of the indictment. May I not ask the At torney-General for England to correct me if I beivrong? custom to (The Attorney-Gener a l i nt i mate d t h at h e was correct.) I am borne out by high a u th or it then, in saying that in this country, it is th e i nva riable furnish the accused party with th e names o f th e witnesses on the back of the indictment. In I re l an d, w h e re of course , there was a perfect equality—(Th e Right Honou rable Gen tleman here spoke in a t one o f bitt er irony)--the tra versers applied to b e f urn i s h e d w ith a list of those names, and they were me t by a peremptory refusal. Was this wh a t i s ca ll e d assimilating t h e administration of the l aw b etween the two countries ? Hon. Gentlemen opposit e are ver y willing to talk of unanimity when it suits their purpose. The Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies has said, again and again, that the judges were perfectly unan i mou s on every point connected with the trial s . But I assert that it is only when unanimity serves your purpose that you rely on it, but when a dissentient opinion was expressed-- Lord STANLEY—When? Mr. SHEIL—When Mr. Justice Perrin pronounced his opinion that the traversers were entitled to be fur nished with the names of the witnesses. Oh, of course there was no notice taken of their dissentience, but how loudly was the unanimity of the judges blazoned forth when there was a concurrence of opinion on the part of the other judges with the Chief Justice, when he ex • plained his view of the law as applicable to the case ? (Cheers.) I will ask the House if it does not think that when, from the harmony of the bench, Right Hon. and Hon. Gentlemen and Noble L ords o p posite, deduced consequences so availa ble to their particular course of policy and prejudices, that bench, an inference equally unfavou rable to t where dissentience of opinion prevailed on course of policy and prejudice in those tria ls, is not to be d ra wn? As I stated before, Mr. Justice Perrin their de clared that it was a matter of right to allow the tra versers to have the list of the witnesses ; and Mr. Jus tice Burton, an Englishman, with some remnant left of those characteristics by which his countrymen were distinguished, said, although it could not be required as a matter of right, yet it woul d be inju dici ou s to refuse it. I tell the Attorney - Ge neral, who went into all that part of the ease, with respect to the right of the tra versers to the names of the witnesses, he should have mentioned the opinions of Justice Burton, Justice Perrin, and Mr. Whiteside, the eloquent counsel for Mr. O'Connell—(Loud and continued cheering) —and then let the House remember that an application which would have been granted in this country had been denied in Ireland, notwithstanding the stron g o p inion s mentioned by the learned and highm inded Jud g e Burton, the decision of Mr. Justice Perrin , a nd the stron g ar g ume nts of Mr. Whiteside. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I ad m it th a t t h e G e neral had allowed the trial to be postponed, but it was proved that it was necessar y to procure evi dence on the part of t he Crown ; and th e next was, that there were but twenty-five Catholics on the panel, when it was known that many more ought to have been on the special jury list. But what I deny is the asser tion made by one Hon. Gentleman that this was the fault of the Court, for Judge Burton expressed his asto nishment that only twenty-five Catholics were upon the jury list, and when this surprise was expressed the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, having the case before him, did consent to postpone the trial with the view as he alleged, to allow time to the traversers to prepare the necessary evidence for their defence. But I ask if the Attorney-General had refused this applica tion for postponement, and insisted on the traversers going immediately to trial, and that upon a panel which was imperfect, and which I say fearlessly, and distinctly the Recorder himself declar ed to be imperfect-- Mr. SHAW (the Reco rder of Dublin)—lt was imperfect. r. S oHr the l L—Yes, list, and I shall begin by declaringes, it was imperfect. I now come to a revision that it is my firm and sincere conviction that to the Re corder of the City of Dublin there was to be attached not the slightest moral blame for any one of the transac tions with respect to those lists, and I believe that he would prefer that his right hand should wither rather than employ it in an unfair way in those transac tions. But while I make this statement, in which I feel assured every one who knows the Right Honour able and Learned Gentleman will concur, he will forgive pap if I city that, although his judicial and his finisteriiil - ottes not Bore Ptil:roi, still I think it was his paramount duty to have remained in Dublin—it was his duty to have been present when the hook coutaiuing the jury list was being made up. He THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENIN • ~ FEERITARY 23, 1844. had a painful task to do, but I have, at the same time, to make some allowance for the acts of the Right Honour able Gentlemen. The Dublin Evening Mail—by the by, a high authority on these matters—had stated that the Right Hon. Gentleman had been compelled to be in at tendance upon an eminent statesman for the purpose of a consultation, preparatory to making an increase in the grant devoted to the purpose of national education in Ireland.—(Loud laughter.) But having acquitted the Recorder of every sort of moral imputa tion, still there are some circumstances which do appear to me, with respect to the revision lists, which were quite inexplicable, and which appear to me eminently to call for the remarks used by Mr. Justice Perrin, when he said that he thought with respect to those lists there were grounds to conclude there was something worse than accident. Now what is the case here? Is it because Mr. M'Grath is a Roman Catholic—is it therefore that it is expected that the defendants (some of whom are Roman Catho lics) have employed their influence for the purpose? Now see what a monstrous charge you prefer against Mr. M'Grath, without the possibility of sustaining it. For what is the charge ? That the defendants actually purloined or lost 15 names of Roman Catholics in one parish, the parish of St. Audeon's, as if they were anxious to exclude the Roman Catholics from the jury !—(Cheers.) A list containing 15 names is lost, and it is alleged that Mr. M'Grath, a Roman Catholic gentleman at present in the employment of the Recorder of Dublin, who has not dismissed him, who won't dis miss him—(Cheers)—was guilty of a most nefarious practice, and that insinuation is made by her Majesty's Attorney-General !—(Loud cheers.) Now, is this a fair mode of proceeding?—(Cheers.) When they found a mistake—l will call it a mistake for the present—but a mistake most pernicious to the defendant, depriving him of the benefit of the Act of Parliament introduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Ma jesty's Government—when you found that mistake operating against the defendant—you say he did it him self—why, do you think that he committed suicide ? There stands the statement.—(Lord Stanley here made some observation across the table which we did not catch.) Let us have no mistake on this point.—(Hear, hear.) What I said was this, that, last night, the At torney-General charged corruption upon us. He charged us with corrupting a public officer, a man whose liveli hood depended on his office—a man from whom we should " Take the life, " When we do take the means whereby he lives." The charge was corrupting a public officer, and for what purpose ? For the purpose of removing Roman Catho lics from the jury. Now, is that plausible ?—(Cheers.) Would such an accusation be received with acclamation by any gentlemen except those who had been pre►iously heated by the singularly operative eloquence of the Right Hon. and Learned Gea tleman.—(Loud cheering.) When I found a British House of Commons cheering on an Hon. Gentleman while he was blasting the character of a private individual, I was astonished at the want of just feeling on the part of the Attorney-General—l was as tonished that such an accusation, so destitute of truth, or I should say without a shadow of probability, should be received with acclamation by a British House of Commons.—(Loud cheers.) When the facts are so much disputed, when such contradictory assertions are made, when I say sixty names were lost, when you say twenty-seven, when the Recorder says twenty-four alto gether, of whom sixteen were Catholics, ought we not to have a Committee to inquire into, and to search the matter to the bottom? If there is corruption connected with a great State prosecution—a matter of such magnitude —.if corruption had been charged in a case where a verdict has been obtained, which verdict has been made a matter of triumph— if with respect to it we are contradicting each other, and meeting each other at every step—if you say, yes, when I say, no—is not just you should grant us a committee ? —(Cheers.) That will not be a vote of censure on the Government. A committee of inquiry into the state of Ireland would be a vote of censure, but this committee will not be a vote of censure. Then give us the com mittee. Let us know how all this has happened. I presume, after a suggestion, which seems to be approved by all sides, that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) who introduced the Act into Ireland, and it is to his merit, for he is a great legal reformer—l presume that in vindication of his own Bill, and to rescue it from the imputation of unfair working, he will not deny us the means of investigating thbse transactions which do clearly re quire investigation. Let us see what took place when the discovery was made, no matter whether the names were 24, or 60, or 27—a certain number were left out, a wrong was done. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) says, and most justly, that on the ballot the names are selected by chance. To be sure they may be, but the chances ought to be equal on both sides— the Government must not play with loaded thee.— (Cheers.) It is mentioned in Rabelais, that a distin guished judge when puzzled with a case, used to throw dice for the decision, and according to the dice used to decide either for the plaintiff or defendant. But in this case the dice have, always been loaded for the Crown. We contend in this case we have not had our just pro portion of contingencies. Why, it was an old practice of this House, in choosing Committees, to put names of Members into a glass, and to draw them by chance. Now, suppose the names of twenty. seven Tories had been left out—(Cheers)—suppose that by any larceny, or loss—and very often one touches on the other— twenty-seven or sixty names of Tory Members were left out, and that it turned out a Whig Committee—men bound by their oaths, and as little likely to act contrary to their consciences as a Protestant jury, and suppose the omission were discovered, what would the Tories say then ?—(Loud cheers.) Would they not say, give us a new ballot? Put the twenty-seven names back? Would not that be said? and very fairly said; and is not this exactly the case here ?—(Loud cheers.) There were ten Catholics left on the list; suppose by any chance there had been thirteen, the Crown could only have struck off twelve, one would have been left; they could not have got rid of him. Of our fair number of tickets in this lottery we have been de prived, and a wrong has in that particular been done us, whether it was the result of fortune or the result of fraud.—(Cheers.) Then, what was the course we adopted ? We took this course, we made a motion to quash 'the panel, and here the Attorney-General was perfectly triumphant. He did not say a word of the next proceeding, but I will take care that I will do so. The Court said we cannot quash the panel. We then made various offers—we said, let the Recorder of Dub lin review the list. The Court said there is a difficulty in that. We said put all the names in the ballot again, including those left out. The Court said there is a diffi culty in that. In short, the Court refused to quash the panel, and refused to give any kind of remedy. But a most impartial step was afterwards taken. We chal lenged the array, and on that the Attorney-General said not a word.—(The Attorney-General was understood to say here, " I did.") I do not remember with any par ticular minuteness the circumstances that did take place, but the House will forgive me, if I; draw their attention to what I do recollect of them. We challenged the ar ray, and the form of that challenge is most material. In that challenge we stated that " several lists in a certain paper-writing, purporting to be a 'general list of the Jury, and purporting to be made out of the several lists set forth and signed as aforesaid, was illegally and frau dulently made out, for the purpose and intent of prejudicing the defendants." These- were all the facts put in issue, to use the legal phrase. We not only mentioned the names, but we also put in issue the frauo. We put in issue the intention to prejudice the defen- ' dants. We put in issue what you have suggested has been done by the defendants for their own benefit. If the Crown had joined issue in these facts, which might have been tried in half an hour by the Court, for it was not a question to be tried by a jury, we having put in issue the most material facts, the loss of the names which was material, and the allegation of fraud which was still more so, was it not the duty of the Crown to have joined issue upon them under these cir• cumstances? If it had joined issue, and the decision had been in its favour, there would be an end of our objec tions, and if the facts had been found against it, then of course the panel must have ..been altered, or some other steps must have been taken. Then how did the Court decide ? Were the Court unanimous ? The Court were not. Mr. Justice Perrin, who introduced the Act into Ireland, which he borrowed from the re formed code of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)— Mr. Justice Perrin, who knew the operation of that Act, who was familiar with all its details, who had scrutinised and adopted its 'machinery—Mr. Justice Perrin decided that the challenge of the array was good, and said that the demurrer should be over ruled .—(Hear.) But the Crown took advan tage of the decision of the majority of the Court, and went to trial, although one of the judges had declared that the list of the jury had been stained and corrupted by suspicion. My Learned Friend suggests to me that a demurrer always admits the facts for the purposes of the argument. That is the truth ; but I did not dwell upon it, because it is a legal fiction. I dwell upon what is more substantial. The Crown had the opportunity of ascertaining a fact of the utmost materiality.— (Hear.) The Crown shrank from that investiga tion, and went on with the case, with the protest of one of the judges against it. The verdict which you have obtained has been obtained through the interven tion of a jury condemned by one of the judges who sat in that Court.—(Hear, hear.) If all the i3udges were unanimous as to the abstract law stated y the Chief Justice, the judges were not unani mous, they-were not at all unanimous, as to the verdict ; because one of the judges condemned the panel, the foundation of the verdict ; and if the panel be shaken, the entire superstructure, if I may so say, raised upon it, must of course fall too.—(Cheers.) I come now to another portion of this case, the striking off of Roman Catholics from the jury. I see I am occupying the House too long—(Loud cheers)—but it is a case of paramount importance. It is a case in which I was counsel, in which I inevitably took a very warm interest—l should feel ashamed if I had not—and with the facts of which I am, to a certain extent, more familiar than others—and I am not conscious that in anything which I have stated I have departed in the slightest degree from the facts.—(Hear, hear.) Now it is said by Mr. Kemmis that there were ten Roman Catholics on the list. Eight of them I ad mit were most properly struck off.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot for a moment pretend that eight men who were members of the Repeal Association, or subscribers to its funds, ought to have been retained upon the jury. I could no more contend for it than I could contend that Mr. Sheriff Falkner should have been retained upon jury.—(Cries of " Hear," from the Opposition.) But there were two men who were not members of the Repeal Association, and who had not subscribed to the Repeal Fund. Mark the affidavit of Mr. Kemmis ; it is in these terms :—He says " that he believed, and still beliq°!3t that two ofthe persons who were Rgm fi COliolie4 WO@ members 9f tilP 4PPg4I A 3 4140440 p, or had subscribed to its rilltqs,' Now Mr, Hendrick is a Roman Catholic, and about Mr. Hendrick the Attorney-General did not say a single word last night ; he did not even mention hie iiitme.—(Hear, hear.) Now see whit coupe has been taken about Mr. Hendrick. The Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, who appears to know a great deal more about this part of the case than the Irish At torney-G en eral, told us that Mr. Hendrick was considered to be a Protestant and Con servative. Who told him so ? Did AL*. Keminis ? No; Mr. Keromis believed him to be a Roman Catholic. —(Hear, hear.) Well, now, are we really to try a matter of this signal importance—namely, the exclusion of Roman Catholics, upon the specific grounds of Mr. Kemmis's affidavit, or by looking at the letters which passed upon the subject? Is that the way to satisfy the public upon a question of such deep and vital interest ? You see the secret of this case in a moment. You make an affidavit—men are generally bound by an afWavit —and you say that the whole ten are either members of the Repeal Association or have subscribed to its funds. Mr. Hendrick is not a member of the Association—Mr. Hendrick never subscribed to the repeal rent—Mr. Hendrick is a Roman Catholic. It is stated that he was a Roman Catholic. I requested my Hon, Friend the Member for the county of Wexford, when this matter was in agitation, to go to the house of Mr. Hendrick, with whom he was acquainted, and inquire whether Mr. Hendrick was a Roman Catholic, or had subscribed to the Repeal Association? The answer was, that Mr. Hendrick was a Roman Catholic, but that he had never subscribed to the Repeal Association —never subscribed to its funds. You prove to be mis taken, and your mistake is of a very important kind.- -(Hear, hear.) Let me now come to the case of Mr. Dunn. Now, Mr. Dunn is not a member of the Association, and never subscribed to the funds of the Association. It is said that he is a Repealer, and the Noble Lord observed that I was a quibbler when I drew a distinction. He said, " There are quibbles which may sometimes be employed in a court of justice, but they ought not to be resorted to in Parliament." But is there no distinction, I ask, between being a member of the Repeal Association and a subscriber to its funds, and being an advocate of the repeal of the union ?—(Hear, hear from the Opposition.) Suppose that Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Bright, and my Hon Friend behind me,were in dicted, together, of course, with the Globe, the Chronicle, The Sun, and all the newspapers favourable to the re peal of the corn-laws, suppose that all these were indicted for a conspiracy. Why, it would be very easy to say we will set aside all who are subscribers to the Anti-Corn-law League, and all who are sub scribers to The Sun and the other papers ; but would you set aside a man because he was an advocate of free trade, or because he had subscribed his name to a requi sition calling a meeting in favour of a repeal of the corn laws ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers, from the Opposition.) Or let me put another case. Suppose the Tories had come in in the year 1831, and suppose that certain con spirators, or certain persons alleged to have conspired, had been indicted for endeavouring to subvert the Con stitution by means of intimidation.—(Great laughter.) Suppose my Noble Friend on my right, and my Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department —(Laughter)—and the Noble Lord opposite, had been indicted for a conspiracy, we will say to swamp the House of Lords, would there not, in that case, have been a distinction drawn between a juror who was personally an advocate of Parliamentary Reform and the members of Brookes's Club, where might be heard, perhaps, in cendiary and seditious speeches, delivered at a table amidst rapturous applause ?—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord said I was a quibbler because I ventured to say there was a great difference between a Repealer and a member of the Repeal Association, the one being charge able with conspiracy, and the other not. Quibbles are bad things, but Ministerial sophistications are much worse.—(Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) I think the Noble Lord must now see that I was not quibbling when I drew the distinction in question. At all events he must see that there is a most marked differ ence between the affidavit of Mr. Kemmis and the statement made by the Noble Lord, who tells us that there were four Dunns, but that it is not pretended that Michael Duna was a member of the Repeal Association.—(Hear.) I think we have clearly made out that two of these men were unobjec• tionable, and that you were not justified, therefore, in striking off their names.—(Cheers.) Now, what ought to have been done under the circumstances ? The panel was bad ; the panel was vitiated ; it was so represented by a judge ; you yourselves admit that a number of names have been struck off. Every Roman Catholic . , you say, was to be s t ruc k o ff. W ou ld it no t h ave b een a wise course to consent that a new panel should be ap pointed ? If the parties had consented to a new panel that panel would have been binding. I believe no lawyer in this House will deny that if the parties had afterwards made an objection they would have been stopped. I do not know what may be the opinion of the Attorney-General, but the opinion of eminent lawyers in this House supports the view which I have taken. But suppose there had been no consent, was there not another expedient ? Would not the rule for a special jury have been discharged ?—(Hear.) The Sheriff of Dublin (Mr. Latouche) is a gentleman of the very highest respectability. When the Irish Municipal Bill passed you retained the appointment ofsheriff for Dublin, though you had not taken it from the Corporation of London. The appointment was vested in the Crown, because you said that if the Corporation were to appoint the sheriff, the new sheriffs would be just as bad as the old ones ; they would as certainly be Repealers, as their predecessors were Anti-Repealers.—(Laughter.) Now, I do not say whether you were right or wrong in taking this course ; but the Crown having taken the appointment into its own hands, and appointed such men as Mr. Latouche, I maintain that you would have acted most wisely, if you had left the appointment to that officer.— (Hear, hear.) You use the words " com mon jury," but the words " common jury" generally mean a jury selected from a partieular class. The jury who tried this case were persons compa ratively of an inferior class. I do not mean to say that the middle classes are not a proper depository of political power. I do not mean to say that it is not wise that your special juries should be composed of Protestant tanners, Protestant piano-forte tuners, and Protestant grocers.—(Great laughter.) I cast no reflec tion on any one, but I go back to the question, why did you not permit the Sheriff to return a common jury the Sheriff appointed by yourselves ? Mr. Latouche would have returned men of the highest con sideration—Protestants and Catholics. He would not have returned Repealers, but he would have returned men of great influence; ho would have returned bank directors, merchants, and men whose station and con duct placed them above suspicion. Yon had the means of doing that, but you did not do it. It was a singular boast of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that he had recourse to a special jury in this case, when, in stead of having recourse in the formation of the jury to men upon whom the high character and moral habits of Mr. Latouche himself might have been impressed, he selected the men I mentioned. What reason had the Right Hon. Baronet for not having a common jury ? Was it a case in which the Crown might not have availed itself of its prerogative of challenging the jury? My Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde) said they would not have dared to exercise their prerogative. The Attorney-General for Ireland said he would have dared—(Hear, hear)—certainly no man can deny his intrepidity.—(Hear; and a laugh.) But my Hon. and Learned Friend says that the Crown is controlled by public opinion—the Crown, if not in Ire land, at least in this country, acting under the coercion dr British sentiment, would not have ventured upon an act at once so culpable and so imprudent as to strike off the names of persons of high respectability because they were Roman Catholics.—(Cheers.) If you were sincere in the manifestation of your desire to have Roman Ca tholics upon the jury, you had a very obvious mode of carrying your purpose into effect and realising that desire when you found your mistake. From the panel from which the Roman Catholics had been excluded you might have got a common jury whose verdict would have been unimpeached, and the whole controversy which has taken place, and all the agitation connected with it, might have been fortunately averted.—(Cheers.) Now under these circumstances, I ask is it wonderful that in Ireland great excitement should have taken place? Is it astonishing that the Roman Catholics of Ireland should have felt indignant upon the subject?— (Cheers.) Is it wonderful a great public meeting should have taken place in every district of the country on the matter? Were these meetings called by factious men? At the head of one requisition calling in Dublin a meet ing was the name of Lord Kenmare, one of the most unqualified advocates of the union, a man of great pos sessions and ancient birth, and closely allied to this country.—(Hear, hear.) That nobleman felt the insult you had offered to him, and he signed the requisition, not for the purpose of gratifying any factious feeling, but from a sense of the insult that had been offered to him as a Roman Catholic. There was a circumstance that gave additional poignancy to the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. That circumstance was this :—The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Attorney- General for Ireland, thought fit to advert to conduct I pursued fifteen years ago, in a trial at Clonmel. He will excuse me if I venture to advert in this House to an expression of political opinion by which he made himself most conspicuons in Ireland. An opinion of which I believe the Right Hon. Baronet, at the head of her Majesty's Government, is not aware —(Hear, hear.) I do not mention this for the purpose of malevolence—(lronical cheers from the Ministerial benches)—l bear no ill-will to the Right Hon. Gentle.. man.—Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) I have no motive for towards him, he never did me wrong. That Right Hon. Gentleman imagines that a conspiracy was entered into at the bar for the purpose of exaspe rating him and wounding his feelings that was unfor tunately a mistake on hi s part but I ' do take upon my honour to assure him, that there was no such intention ever entertained.—(Hear, hear.) But he is a public man, and in speaking of public men opposed him, he does not exhibit, any particular delicaoy, and he must expect when political antagonists come to scrutinise his con• duct and examine his motives, they will ask "what manner of man he is," and what course he has pursued. He, last night, adverted to a speech I made at a trial. He said he was sorry for what he bad stated, and, as he says he is sorry for it, he is to be forgiven,-,-. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible that Roman Catholics, when they came to compare his conduct at the trial with opinions ho had expressed, should not have suspicions that unfair dealing was intended in their regard. The ' fact I allude to is this—a great public assembly took place in Dublin in the year 1837, where the principal Conservatives of that city met together; that great public assembly moved a resolution, and he took a most active part in the proceedings, some of which related tO question of education.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposi. tion.) That I mention in a parellthoA4 with it I have nothing to do now, Tllg wwti lig was attended by M r . VIVA Y9ll 1141 T Van& a Master in Chanceiy— kYhlr 4-teiroy'whom you have made ejudge—by Mr. Jackson whom • you have also made a judge and by the Right Honourable Gentleman whom you have made Attorney-General. The resolutionspassed at that meeting were s i r a most violent character. They declared that the Protestants of Ireland were at that as'perilons a condition as in the 4rea , C 10,41 i that is the effect of one of the resolutions I hold in my hand In the year 1641 a most frightful massacre of the Pro testants of Ireland is said to have taken place, and those gentleman in the Rotunda declared that the Protestants of Ireland were then in as perilous a condition as at the above period, and that the slaughter of their coun trymen was contemplated by the Roman Catholics of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) But what does the Right Hon. Gentleman say ? Ile referred me to a copy of his speech, printed by .Milliken. He did not tell us that that copy was corrected by him, or by his authority. But I have the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman here. Every one here knows that speech was made by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and that everybody in Dublin did not go to Milliken's for it. Then, what does he say? " I am sorry that circumstances hare induced me to be lieve that Roman Catholics have very little regard for the sanctity of an oath."—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Well now, that was open—that was manly. I prefer it to insidious imputation—(Cheers)—to hints, conveyed with an assumption of gentleness and a suavity of voice. —(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) felt indignant at the proceedings adopted by the Irish Roman Catholics. The feeling of indignation entertained by them was not confined to them. You will admit, I believe, that the English 'Zeman Catholics are not Repealers—that the high Roman Catholic aristocracy of England, men of exalted position and ancient birth, and exceedingly mnederate in politics are not allies of, and co-partners with, Daniel O'Con nell. What effect did your proceedings produce upon them ? The Earl of Shrewsbury, when the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury came into office, wrote a letter to the Catholics of Ireland, in which he recommended them to support the Administration of the Right Honourable Baronet. What is the letter which the Earl of Shrewsbury, the premier Earl of Eng land, now writes ? The blood of the Talbots caught fire at last, when insult was offered to his co-religionists in Ireland? He says in his letter to Lord Camoys, on the occasion of the Catholic meeting in London, after expressing his inability to attend, that he was anxious for an opportunity of expressing his indignation at the fresh insult that had been offered to the Catholic popu lation of the kingdom by the conduct of the law officers of the Crown in the preliminary proceedings on the interesting and important trials pending in Dublin. That comes from a man himself inclined ori ginally to give his support to the Administration of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and who wrote a letter in which he said that the Right Hon. Gentleman had carried Catholic Emancipation, and that confidence should be placed in him. These facts are startling— (Hear, hear)—and there is no Roman Catholic with one spark of spirit but muit resent them. See what an anomaly this is ! You repeal the Catholic Emancipa tion Act, practically, as far as the jury box is con cerned. We are admitted to the bench of justice ; you have sent there the late Bar on W o lf e , an d Sir Michael O'Loghlin ; we are admitted to the Imperial Parliament which I, a Roman Catholic, have at present the honour of addressing; we are admitted to the Board of Admiralty, the Treasury, to the Board of Trade, and to the Privy Council. But admitted as we are to the bench ofjus lice —admitted to the Senate—admitted to the Admi ralty, the Treasury, and the Board of Trade --admit ted as we are to the Privy Council of our Sovereign, we are excluded from the jury box. We are excluded from the jury box, which has afforded a refuge to Protestant ascendancy, and has thus become invested with the most odious form of that detestable do mination—(Cheers)—and yet the Noble Lord the Se cretary for Ireland perseveres in his professions, and tells us that he is exceedingly anxious for the adminis tration of justice.—(Cheers.) At the last London election some person in the crowd asked Mr. Baring if he was for free trade. Oh, yes, said Mr. Baring, "I am for free trade in the abstract."—(A. laugh.) " Will you vote for a repeal of the corn-laws?" asked the man. " Oh," replied Mr. Baring, " that is quite another thing."—(Cheers and laughter.) So the Noble Lord is for an impartial administration of justice in the abstract, but when he is asked will he admit Catholics into the jury box, he replies, " Oh, that is quite another thing."—(Loud cheering.) But it may be possibly from infirmity of purpose that the Noble Lord takes that course. Not so with Lord De Grey—(Loud cheers) against whom pave a most serious charge to make con nected with this trial; and I hold in my hand the means of substantiating that charge. —(Hear, hear.) The House has doubtless heard of the existence of an Asso ciation in Dublin, called the Protestant Operative Asso ciation. I allude to this Association—first, as illus trating the results of the policy of the present Govern ment ; and secondly, as illustrating the consequences of your sacerdotal institutions.--(Loud cheers.) I hold in my hand extracts from the debates of that Society, some of which I will read to the House. Popery is denomi nated a God-destroying, Christ-blaspheming, Bible denying superstition.—(Cheers and laughter.) Now, this is from an address to the people of England. They denominate Popery gross idolatry, the monstrous pro geny of Satan, and the whole concludes with a panegyric upon the Hon. Member for Knaresborough--(Loud laughter)—whose arrival in Dublin, which was then expected, is stated as an event which every Irish Pro testant must contemplate with sentiments of gratitude. —(Cheers and laughter.) That Hon. Gentleman the other night read a speech which he attributed to me. He made a mistake ; that speech was not made by me, but by a cousin of mine residing in Cork, and it was made against me, for he said that if he did so and so he should be as bad as silk-gown Sheil.—(Cheers and laughter.) I asked him where he found the speech ; the lion. Member showed it me in the " Annual Register." It was a mistake to attribute to me ; the Hon. Gentleman made the mistake, but I certainly acquit him of any intention to misrepre sent me.—(Cheers.) This Dublin Protestant Operative Association presented an address to Lord De Grey int. mediately after the proclamation was issued. On the 13th October, the Dublin Operative Protestant Associa tion presented an address to Lord De Grey, in which, after speaking, of the dispersion of the Clouted meeting., they spoke of the sacrifice of the mass as a blasphemo us fable--(Hear, hear)—dangerous to and destructive of Christianity—that the people of England had insisted upon the abolition of idolatry in India, and that it was necessary for the good of Ireland that a law should be made for the total abolition ery.—(H ear , h ear.) Now that was an address presto Lord De Grey at a great public crisis—at a time when the public mind was agitated to its profoundest depths. Now what was Lord De Grey's answer ?—(Hear, hear.) Did he denounce the insult thus offered to his fellow -country men, and, through them, to himself ?—(Lond cheers.) When he came to Ireland, he said his Sovereign, when she had sent him there, had charged him to be care f u l o f the interests of Ireland, for she was peculiarly solicitous for the welfare of her Irish people.—(Loud cheers.) Now what_ was the answer which he, who had received so solemn a charge, and from whom the benevolent in tentions of his Sovereign should have been reflected— (Loud cheers)—what was the answer which he had re turned to that address ? I will read it :—" I have in command from his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of the address of the Dublin Operative Protestant Association, and his Excellency desires me to make known to those members of the As sociation who have signed it his warmest acknowled:ge ments—(lmmense cheering)—for their expression of their feelings of kindness and confidence."—(Cheers and counter cheers.) Now will the first Lord of the Trea sury justify the answer?—(lmmense cheering.) I need not repeat the question. I know th a t h e w ill not.— (Loud cheers.) The Secretary of State for the Home Department will say that it was injudicious ; as the the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who is fast asleep —(lmmense cheering and laughter, during which Lord Stanley roused himself and bowed to the Right Hon. Gentleman)—l beg to hand him the documents to furnish materials for his next "No Popery" speeth, (Immense cheering.) Now I have not said one word about the trials, and I shall say b u t littl e a b out them. I shall say but ittle of the charge of the Chief Justice, because I was the counsel " on the other side."—(Cheers.) One observation, however, I must make. The Noble Lord opposite remonstrated with us the other night on our want of decency—?our want of respect to the. Bench in venturing to attack the charge of a judge. Now those who heard the speech the other day are not, per haps, aware that the Noble Lord who considered- it eb indecent in us to cast reflections on the Chief Justice, himself denounced Baron Smith in this House, and voted for an inquiry into his conduct.—(Loud cheers.) For inquiry . into a charge of Baron Smith's.—(Re newed cheering.) Lord STANLEY—Not for an inquiry into a charge. Mr. SHEIL—You voted for a Committee to inquire into a speech made from the Bench. Lord STAITLEY—No. Mr. SHELL—A motion was made in this House for a Committee to inquire into a charge delivered by Baron Smith from the bench to a grand jury of the county of Dublin.—(Cheers.) The Secretary of State for the Home Department will perhaps be able to tell him, for he voted against the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) He was shocked at the . Noble Lord's conduct.—(Cheers and laughter.) On that occasion the Noble Lord and the Secretary for the H ome D epartment were divided.— (Cheers and laughter.) Only one star appeared en that occasion in Gemini. (Cheers and laughter.) But let us pass from that to consider the moral effect of the verdict.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Do fou expect any beneficial effects from that verdict?—(Loud cheers.) Why, the Home Secretary was, the other night, compelled to admit that there were circumstances connected with those trials that he considered matter of regret.—(Cheers.) Now, if there were circumstances which he regretted, he might, I think, have spared the phrase " convicted con spiratars."—(Loud cheers.) But even if the verdict would be untainted—he is an Englishman, and ought not to strike a man when he is down.—(Loud cheers, during which Sir James Graham said something across the table which we could not catch.) Well I well ! per haps I ought not to have said so. At all events, say that the phrase " convicted conspirators " is an infelicitous expression, and that, in his cooler moments, the Right Hon. Gentleman would wish he had not used it. Is the moral effect of the verdict likely to be increased by the speech of the Noble Lord, the Secretaiy for the Colonies.—(Cheers.) It was made some days ag9, but it is worth r emem b er i ng .—(Ch eers and counter cheers,) It will be remembered in Ireland—(Cheers. and counter cheers)—and it may be remembered in Canada.--(Opposition cheers.) Now my Friend, Mr. Fonblanque, has very justly remarked, that every sash of the Noble Lord reminded one of a blister made of very shining_ flies (Cheers.) And if the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Govern menthis 11340 could only have (Kited Ire land did not nowandthat he to his department, discreetly if be avoided, he would be acting prudence, if he had told the Nob w le ith Lord that. Re touching on the subject . more llo remembered the state of sed by such topics—but the Noble. feelings of the people a that. province might not deny himself the. opportunity of givine mi an a d m h 4e osv oro t us 0 swnewhat pharasaical homily upon the Catholic owil. Can vi ada, He read that as if he was reading from italics. --( A laugh.) Such was his emphasis. reading read it with th