The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-21 00:00:00

h ---.....,...........„ . ards returns were ordered by the House, and by hem he learned that the Bill of the Noble Lord (Stan e wo uld materially di m i n i s h t h e f ranc hi se ; made up hi s mind that he would no t .o p 5 sung support it. It was idl e i n t h ose d ays i n r men down in, their opinions, or fetter t h em too closely in their actions. He did ti not Wish to trouble the House with his interpreta on of the Catholic oath, but he must be permitted to express his regret : Lh thoutpt proper at the Noble Lord (Stanley) had - to allude to it. —(Hear, hear.) He f e°lll " agree that the Catholic Members banded to ether in ':,iat House for the purpose of injuring the Pro ssestaut Church; on the contrary, they relinquished for Them'ttwo years the advantages their position gave s , for the purpose of pursuing their favourite sys- Gsetii of agitation. The great point now was what the overnment proposed to do. Ile wished the Right honourable Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would take the same course in regard to the Irish Church that he had ;pc in regard to commerce ; and he particularly de red that he would announce his intentions. If he w ould make from time in time in that Church the same 6,lteady and sa f e alterations and ameliorations as he had . rdone our commercial code, the difficulties now Perieneed in Ireland would soon begin gra tantlasn, ,to disappear.—(Hear, hear.) He did not --" the late Government with not carrying the ap ' s s t s ° Priati on clause into effect. The Noble Lord, ril he found he could n o t' carr y it ou t, ver y w i se l y :ss*octoned it. Th e C at h o li c question stood on quite dif `t'llarFat grounds from this motion, which involved a most r e St attack on the Government. 111'41 Hon. Members here rose together, but the Peal‘t_ke_r_ca,lled on five '. asISBORNE, who seid he did not think that, after than ri.ighte debate, the point was much farther advanced al: m u was at first. It was almost unavoidable that it -." be so. In the speeches that had been made by vtaetabers of the Government—and he did not under „Vac their merit—they had claimed for themselves lai e a r Y,g° o d intention with regard to Ireland; they had is o f r Laim to kindness and calmness in their general „ 'eY and to fairness in their administration of justice, wen t impartiality as ihspartiality in the distribution of the . Govern soliti patronage. 'I hese were their intention H o e_ all natlitoeutssiversally stated by travellers and writers f nation ' who had visited Ireland, that there was no be in the world with whom a little kindness I r t ns,l s ° far as with the Irish people. As far as the ad it had measures of the Govcrnment had gone h a s" laid claim to kindness, forbearance, and impar tot ity. 1 , On the other side they lied a grateful, a gene theland a confiding people; to that character of them ask Rend of Dublin had borne testimony. He would . results'''em whether they found in Ireland the national of this combination ? They would expect under stud circ umstances to find. Ireland in a state of peace lisinipresperity. They would expect to find the people tx l) i n confid ence un d er suc h ru l ers. They would count' ' t o find th em en j oy i ng a ll t h e bl ess i ngs which a raeilTY could enjoy und er a beneficent Govern must - I f this was not t h e case sure l y t h ey 1, the ,°°K on the Hon. Gentlemen opposite as Rood I° lt unfortunate of men. Surely they were teed nl eo Suffering under adversity-, if all the to b acts which it was their intention to have brought . fa ct t ar on the Irish people, bad failed. He saw in this Isi ebi a sreater reason for supporting the motion of the th e ./t Ek &ford thaninany speech he had heard addressed to tood - I, °l-I ,_se. If the Government had failed, having such aini ae Tentions, surely it was time for the House to tehxe systelf there was not something radically wrong in sernni -' by which it was carried on. When theGo t' 1 ,,, " succeeded to office, the first thing they did was ti sal loint to the judicial bench two fierce political par res;• • Ile would say nothing with respect to their fe . smelt' pcsition, or of the excellence of their pri tisr, character ; but this the Government could not a T ty, that for many years, in that House, they hoeste 'solo for partisans. Suppose Mr. O'Connell had 1 tried before Mr. Sergeant Jackson and Baron With c : Y ' w ould any one have expected an impartial trial? i th„ t r ,"Pect to their other appointments, the defence % et - ',overnment was this, that though they could ,tioa s w „'shed to have appointed Catholics to situa 'ice of re material did not exist ; among the Catho- I PpoV` r ehuld there did not exist persons fit for these /e rru l is e - h rn s e ntg- This was , another calamity of the Go 'ea in which was oily demonstrative of the situa tictlesss'ils,_ which they were placed when they ~Ivas —`", the government of that country. It ki, ne „Precisely the same with other events. Atti,,.tnity after another seemed to fall on this un tette Government. In the first place, when they de take•all„td to try Mr. O'Connell, wishing to show the e coni sii ‘ fairness, they determined not to try him by th I l acked " 'toe', because they said, they could hese ,„ t otar o ,'„ l'olv surelthey s te msght have tried him bthe 'Righ t — Panel without packing it. But perhaps it s ach be that the Government did not wish to establish siseltea precedent as that of trying a man for a political they 1 !II Ire landovithout packing the common jury; so eigh t 7,Lormined to put off the trial in order that they ei o "a s _ve a fair jury. Here, again, calamity followed ' Itith without any fault on the part of the Recorder— ,,t4nitl,any neglect on his part—almost without any 'N'at a i-- a nY . body, the virtuous intention of the Go her e nt was again disappointed. By some means or Allieha certai n s h eet of the list of the jury was l o st, o n ' litie le , as t he. Recorder of Dublin stated, almost all the I ' ) t, he „ w t ere those of R oman C at h olics. But they could l cse a , t he extent of the misfortunes that fell on the Go rotaisynt till they carne to the striking off of 48 names laid Lue jury li s t. Wh en this imperfection of the panel was co4s7fore the Lord Chief Justice, he said it was of no .... a 5pe,, (1 . 11 .,,eee• The law prescribed the strict mode in which slo s ' l st itry . panel should be formed in Ireland. 11 ,ot 'L itt le had not been formed in that manner, it had 'ili • —ll f ormed according to - law, and yet the Chief stie„ . ttie l , a ii said it was a good one, at least, it was good i ght - „,,, t o try these traversers by. When .thebfortye ,Tearo.racs were drawn, the Government—its bowels tau s - s in g .te give civil equality to the people of Irelan kr, e s . -`_ a iUrY to be challenged, and that excellent person ,„ CRAB struck off nine Catholics ... , of whom eight it tio harlier, or contributors to the Repeal fund. But Mr.bnknownPt°onedthere Was another Catholic on the list, Illunes out of f 4ellirais ' Now, if they struck nine • dining, anertifY;tthet there would be thirty-nine re conversant any gentlemen in the oilII:t, conversant with what were called the te le ' they would see that it was thirty-eight to kr: xagessaina.t Mr, liensmis bitting on this Catholic. ila„, .for b a d 0 g. t him. Ile dived amongst the 39 0 , 1 711 tor the one !Litman Catholic, not knowing that teZaa there, and he picked him out.—(Laughter.) h e;" l Y t his was one of the most singular coincidences l etit ve_r,he , ard of. He had heard of persons " taking wit 4 1 4 ,7 1 . '„' and never winning —(Laughter)—but here 1 ,,1t Cath o e . i ninis, at the very first draw, drawing the vuliae,aB 'l.--(Laughter.) Mr. Nemnus must certainly kn nth•• vetY tuannetic fingers.—(Laughter.) This was sti t h t e r i pf the calamities of the Government. Then the i be trfirlt Gentleman said he was most anxious to have lett. ' c onduct d s e with great moderation, and he wrote Il e lel: t° the Att orney -General for Ireland on that point, vele ' hot • Lehl h a d g ° llig to say anything of certain occurrences h ot been mentioned in that House, but the result "qe Rio C i ° ;yreSPOlld to the wish so strongly expressed by ici'yerkezioli. Gentleman. The last misfortune of the tee slice, was owing to the speech of the : c a it rne r uvi„ I ce, who certainly made a stronger spe fo . ‘q, --Oral t h an ... . ~ literal _ s i lt ar, h ea the Attorney or Soneitor-ue . le a , r, laughter.) No, though a conviction f ale s , eu le th to ' br an 0 way this had been obtained might gnat y th:elne Gran P ar tizans—though it might afford a triumph it - , 41 to imprisons* sneir s upporters—though it might enable tih "ettl Mr. O'Connell with the other traversers, tertale store Produ ce land, nor would it peace to Ire . . s c , s t Y it , respect for the law.—(Hear, hear.) lie was s,„", W es a s admitted on his side of the House that per l'ltra. Ito be struck off the jury because they were Re tl44cl w e twll i s a dmitted that seven-eighths of the people of 1\ 1 , 4 q th e ,4,ePealers, and therefore . they must be struck ts i , stud that upon all occasions like the . present. It t i lit t , t , nat a Repealer would fast himself to death • I tri, ""all b • i n • • salve -ho per ring a verdict for conviction ; but were lip e s to a s a ° ll 3 on the other side who would fast them tl/4:l'.er cours eFa rather than acquit?—(Hear, hear.) The e ketis appeared to him to be to strike off known jecl th s ,°° both sides.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble kl uct, e.'.ecretay for the Colonies, who was not in his d ilt seh eit 'd they sie cr it°trtorrn were struck off by the Crown Solicitor his clients. They . all knew what the 414 b y ~l i eYs was towards their clients. It was to h ear t or means which the very questionable mo lis) and the law left open to them.—(Hear, t4, 4 ,ssed , a laugh.) The Noble Lord was so (t k r k t el,the ide a of winning, that he called the 1 416, 4 ght e 4ue Crown the " clerk of the course."— S tra' t ed 1 )4 T he Right Hon. Gentleman said that he hi t 'it bit to of the Roman Catholics who had been 4 4, 4 ft , ( I, li t O be a Repealer, because, though he swore in p eki oeia tie,, that he was not a member of the Repeal tf a al% T h a t fie did not swear that he was not a Re atia le'arsea w a s PPeared to him to be much the same as i 4 Pu t told saw you in Pall-mall to-day," te ll tol4 „ rniaking an affidavit that he was not there Isss a cta ls " ss , but you were in Russell-square." He tcaleetZ° confidence in the measures which the Go- IVellPaSiwe°lll(l. Propose for Ireland. They reminded him st..,s. Which he had lately read in a letter of Crom er"' th e e wanted to get some law reforms, and he 41t•atui: Tnslvtrtjurctsion' There is mention in the last part tole 1..• .. bob, 0 s . o your purpose to do many good_ s _sts l ast e ) u will not be like the gentleman who 11 1) „,7tr e f ‘s w il, and set down a great . number of men s lea, - ,:ra -s. receive benefits from him, and there was th , at ti t ; 4 113 4 -eN of ,e latter end." S o with regard to those h„ itt ~,. tile n. l il 7 Pr the lattes;overn,m, ea. they seemed to have no k oPoso , end- —(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Neeues of `_ to do (Hear, good things, and set down itt ta van p eo 1 4be fro m Pe o Ireland who were to receive illa lo latt hem, but they had "no sum eked titer ead.s_ and hear, and laughter.) thalaooe,OP°° the Land l o rd h 4 a.h . 'lie, ~„,, ,_ Tenant Commission as t NI of " b e Bear Iv never more convinced of it 4 mh at lie Geve.... as u ßight Hon. Baronet at the tt t klid, ti Bad been uohent giving his cordial approbation Metedek e, ,4i the Said by the Right Hon. Member for k „ fus tt) th il ave a,: lu s i ll r b e i d ee The Right Hon. Baronet th s -st ed e opi n i on on a sudden a very great re kis 1 1 04. o n oi le _ s .of the Hon. Gentleman. He re -1,4 said G eati _ occasion during the last session when se Is qth 'roan w as 19,. night at li e „r 9)eaking upon some subject, is _ 11 0 ... b_eed math another Hon. Gentleman. ' ev et 7s rote n ' Gentle a nother in one of those stage Ni s pew . ro tt u eu L to be heard, said, " It is the first time h 4, Ptt i,..... .' agree with any one."—(Laughter.) }, e /I,* sboitisii,did.not say what you attribute to me. thin l y belieye-"." that that, when he used the words, ~it.t . ,.ltip _ ii t ,T that they were the exact words used terii.,,,r4hea,tritelrt4s.tintleitii:tioo:rt. gentleman.uph oidi u g Government had de the Irish Church Esta eiqs „ 4 31 e . bo ne h il°n• and Gallant Friend the Member . Siads that stated the other evening, in the de ns w ar -, t n „ t • itF, tcf•i ' hut he I,t other not now the fashion to de shpathe Qor: considered that this declaration on the t , iti tl4 l t tirTkeilt emulent of maintaining the Irish Church Irel ane va T s , equivalent to a declaration of war 4t. W as a great evil, which they could el I Whether the present Government had done so, he thought there could not be much doubt 1. about it. The union had been proposed as a s remedy for the grievances of Ireland. Had it answered al that purpose ? And if it had not, was there much dill " culty in considering why it had failed ? Everything h had been tried in governing Ireland by good faith and d justice. The union had not been accomplished in a men d ner to afford satisfaction to the people. The If most eminent patriots of the time at which the i, union was carried denounced the measure as having II been accomplished by fraud and by profligate means. - Ireland had not received her fair share of the bargain— h Catholic Emancipation had not been granted until 29 years after the union. It was not conceded until it could no longer be withheld with safety—emancipation, ,t like the union, was, to a great extent, nominal—the value 1 of the Emancipation Actconsisted in its being practically t carried out. If the Roman Catholics were not - admitted to a full anticipation in the privi a loges and honours which the law conferred upon them, the Emancipation Bill was a dead letter. e Both should be carried out in perfect good faith. a In consequence of this Ireland, instead of being a happy ✓ adjunct to England, had been a constant source of the a greatest anxiety and trouble to her, and had been her ( self in a state of perpetual uneasiness. It was most ma t terial, considering the period which had passed by, that they should take a serious review of what were the com a plaints which had been urged by the Irish people, and - what were the causes which kept her in that condition, f and the remedies which they proposed to apply to evils of t such long continuance. Ireland had been under the manage ment of the political party who now held the reins of - Government for a very long period, and what she was now was the result of their management. They had a short exception during the time of the Whigs, but i Honourable Gentlemen opposite, having this long experience in the treatment of Ireland, ought . they not to have been able to devise some . means to remedy the ills of the country? When the Whigs were in power, and likely to leave office, the Right Hon. Baronet. acknowledged that Ireland would be the great difficulty with which he would have to con tend. Full time and consideration had been bestowed upon the state of Ireland ; and the present Government therefore were expected to be well prepared to legislate in the manner which the state of Ireland required. Well, two years had passed, and nothing had been done. While in opposition, the Tory party was most active in their exertions to frustrate all attempts on the part of the Whigs to ameliorate the condition of Ireland. It had been a complaint against the Whigs that they done so little for Ireland whilst they were in power. Now he would challenge any one to show that they had power to do more than what they did. That their most anxious wish was to act upon the principles which the Noble Lord avowed, and on the policy which he announced in his speech, no one could deny. They had been taunted because of withdrawing the appropria tion clause, but he would ask, was it withdrawn as a matter of choice on the part of the Whigs, or was it withdrawn because they found they were unable to carry it, as they had been also unable to carry many other objects, by the force of the Opposition? During that period, considering what had been the course pur sued by the Opposition, the Whigs had shown the same feeling towards Ireland which they had manifested during the many years of her sorrow, agitation, and distress. The first reasonable ground for the security of any country was general confidence in the Govern ment ; and could the Irish nation feel the slightest con fidence in the present Administration? The reverse was the case. What were the taunts which were loudest against the Whigs when in power, but that they were making too many concessions to the Irish people? The cry of Hon. Gentlemen opposite was that concession had reached its utmost limits—(Hear, and cheers)-- and that no further concessions could be granted with safety to the interests of the Establi s h e d Ch urc h, or o f the English nation. There was one thing which he con• sidered most extrordinary, and that was the assertion that the Whig Government had not done all they ought to have done for Ireland. At least two of its most ta lented Members had alienated themselves from the party to which they were originally attached, merely because the then Whig Government were favourable to Ireland. And, unfortunately for Ire land, the only two Members of the late Whig Adminis tration, who had been admitted into the present Go vernment, were those two who had displayed the most inveterate hatred against that country. When the present Government was first formed, great anxiety prevailed to know how the Right Hon. Baronet would act towards Ireland ; and what had been done during the two 3-ears he held office, and what was the present state of Ireland ? Why Ireland continues to to be as she had been before, upon the very brink of a civil war; and were they to be' told after this acknow ledgment, that the Noble Lord was wrong in asking the House to review the affairs of that country, and the policy which had been acted on, and which was likely to continue with respect to the government of that - country? —(Hear, and cheers.) It had been said that this motion had been brought forward at a wrong time; but in answer to that, he should say that any one who had the slightest knowledge of the popular history of Ireland would acknowlege that there never yet was an instance when a motion, such as the present, was brought before the House, that it was. not called ill-timed. That was the common and constant mode in which such motions were met. Was Ireland in a state now that allowed them to choose their own time ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Were they to wait until the stream had passed by? Did they not know Ireland was only in the same state that she had been for years before, and that there was not the slightest prospect of a cessation of those evils ? The time to demand an investigation was when the country was in such a state of agitation as it was now. The motion was a most constitutional and intelligible one.—(Cheers.) The intent of the motion was to ask this House, and to ask the country, if the policy pursued by the present Government towards Ireland was ap proved of. He would not attempt to deny that this motion implied censure upon the Government. He was aware that the motion would be lost by a large majority, but still he felt sure it was the duty of the Noble Lord to bring conviction to Ireland, that her wants, and, even if in error, her errors; had been respectfully treated by Parliament, and that the state of the country should not be passed over in silence, but that the House should consider and pronounce an opinion upon the matter. Had they governed Ireland in such a manner as to se cure peace ? Was the fault with Ireland or with the Government ? If it was her fault, was the Govern ment capable of applying any means to correct the faulti? How long would they require to do so ? What period of time was supposed to furnish sufficient evidence as to the fitness or unfitness of any given course of policy? Could they for one moment believe that past experience did not show the cause which had produced the present discontent? Did that course of policy which had so long failed hitherto, present any prospect of answering better for the future ? He apprehended that there was no ground whatever for it. The Government said, as all persons said, that the Irish Church, was at the bottom of the unhappiness under which Ireland suffered. Well, then, why did they not propose a remedy—some thing less than the disease itself ? They had been trying various remedies for the Irish. Church. It had been allowed to be an evil, and if it were allowed to continue how could they expect that remedies addressed to other matters, which wholly passed by the Irish Church—how did they expect that peace would result from measures that had so long failed ? With the present condition of Ireland, could they be led to suppose that measures which had hitherto failed, without any alteration of the circumstances, would be more successful for the, future ? There was no ground for this. He said, therefore, that the present Govern. ment were called upon to state how they proposed to meet those difficulties. He, for one, thought that the union between the two countries was necessary for the prosperity of both. The Government had declared that they were ready for civil war rather than resign that. If this was the case he would ask how long they would so maintain it ? What period of time did they suppose would Ireland remain in that condition? What period of time did they suppose that the Christian in habitants of Great Britain would continue such a civil war ? Ireland said, " Give us our due share of influence in the Government. Do not keep the Establishment in the condition in which it now is, so wholly unsuited to the object of an Establishment. If you tell us that you cannot give us this—if you say that there are circum stances in the union which prevent you from granting us our just demands, Ireland has a right to demand the repeal of the union." The union ought no longer to exist than for the happiness and prosperity of both. Ireland said ibis country had professed to form a part nership,—" You monopolise all the power —you exclude us from all interference in the management of our concerns. We call upon you to do us justice—to give us a due share of authority—to make the partnership a source of happiness and prosperity to us. You refuse to do this, and say, Rather than dissolve the partnership, you are ready for civil war." He would def . y any man to enter on the contemplation of this subject. and come to the conclusion that civil war would last long under such circumstances. The English nation was distinguished for its justice and its religion. What would be the condition of England in the eyes of Europe during the continuance of a civil war arising out of claims such as those urged by Ireland. Were these matters fit to be considered? Let them remember that things had oc curred before from which the Government of' England might derive a useful lesson. The exhibition of the power of resisting the claims of Ireland, with respect to the dissolution of the union, was he trusted, very re mote, if not impossible. But what was the case with respect to America ?—(Hear, hear.) The present Go vernment could not hold a higher tone—they could not more despise their anticipations which related to the dis memberment of the empire, than the Government did at the time of the American war. Contrary, however, to their expectations—descending from their high tone and from their very heavy threatening, America was lost to this country—lost by the unhappy folly of the Go vernment of the day who would not take timely warning; and what was now the tone with respect to Ireland ? Why was Catholic Emancipation granted ? Because they could not withhold it. It was easy to talk of civil war—but he repeated that civil war would not last long under the sanction of the English nation. England would proclaim, and proclaim loudly, against the injus tice of one'nation overrunning and subjugating another on account of that nation insisting upon its rights. He r p wi r th o yi a c ochhf waslorf e l inconsistentan did not believe that 'England would long endure the carryingre onavvw.iathr in th o e rd h er ap t p o trib t o h e e e they hhnees shouldpdefertherefore consider i a cb l easl called subject. e a d t r t eu h s p same result happiness and p a r u o n s o e n - Surely, therefore, when the Government the H oft e i G n itself looked at the possibility of such a state of things, touehvcoehurGovernment thought state nt contemplate th me oNo w s fto h bs a tel t her iiwouldougssrl seriously had done right in calling upon the country to consider what would, in all probability, be the result of that state of things for which the Government had said they were prepared, rather than consent to the union being dis solved. He did not apprehend that there was any real 'desire on the part of any portion of the Irish people for a not deal with unless by abating it. He was convinces that there would be no peace in Ireland without the re moval of the Church Establishment. The Right Hon Gentleman opposite said that they should cherish it a the apple of their eye; but he would say, in Scriptura language, "If thine eye offend time, pluck it out.' —(Cheers and laughter.) That was the mode in whirl they should deal with the Irish Church. He woulc make peace in this way—that no more bishops am deans should be created, and that, upon the death o every Irish bishop, a regiment should be withdrawn and a battalion upon the death of every dean.--(Mucl laughter and cheering.) There would be then a simul• taneous diminution in the army and the Church, whicl he had no doubt would contribute much to the pacifica tion of Ireland.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and LearneC Solicitor-General, in his speech last night, said that there was a great deal of difference between f u nd amen t a l laws and other laws. That he considered to be a most dangerous doctrine. One of the grounds of their con stitutional security was that there was no limit in changing the laws of the Constitution. They had the power, if they pleased, with the concurrence of the three branches of the Legislature, of turning the monarchy into a republic.—(Hear.) That was their great safeguard, and when the nation wished for a change they would not be prevented from making it by any Act of Parliament which the Solicitor-General might consider fundamental. The real ground upon which he supported the motion was not owing to any misconduct in administration on the part of her Majesty's Go vernment, but because, in spite of the good intentions of the Government--in spite of their carrying them out fairly, and according to the spirit and principle of the law, he saw a state of things established in Ireland which this House ought not to sanction ; and his second reason was, that he was convinced the measures which the Government proposed were too trifling to produce any benefical effect, because there was "no sum at the end of them"—(Cheers)—and he considered their de terminationof maintaining the Protestant Church in Ire land was tantamount to a permanent war against the Irish people. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said he quite agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that Hon. Gen tlemen opposite had made no progress in their attack upon her Majesty's Government, and he believed that his opinion would be sympathised in by the country at large.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) It had been hi s lot, since he had been in Parliament, sometimes, but always with reluctance, to vote against her Majesty's Government ; but never did he remem ber to have given a vote more sincerely in their favour than he would now give in .approval of the fairness and wisdom with which they had conducted the recent af fairs in Ireland.—(lronical cheers from the Opposition.) He did not care how long that debate might interrupt the business of the House, for he believed that the longer it continued the stronger would be the position which the Government would occupy in the opinion of this country. —(Hear, hear from the Ministerial benches.) The Right lion. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh had alluded to the question of the Irish Church. As an individual he would be content to limit the duration of the Irish Church to the period when Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had agreed what they would do with it.—(Laughter.) Some Honourable Members in tended to transfer it to another party, others were for cutting it in two ; some were for paring it down, others for cutting it up.—(Laughter.) One Hon. Member pro posed, that at the demise of every bishop, they should' remove a regiment, and of every dean, a battalion.— (Laughter.) One - Hon. Gentleman had asked her Ma jesty's Government to look at the question at large, and in order to do so he most cautiously avoided entering into any detail himself.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, stated certain grounds on which he said the Established Church ought not to be rested. It ought not to be rested, he said, on quotations from Hansard, from old books, or from Acts of Parliament. He (Mr. S. O'Brien) quite agreed that unless they could make out a stronger case for the Established Church in Ireland than could be made from what Roman Catholic Bishops had said, they could not go to sea in such a boat. It was not ac cording to the spirit of our legislation to exact oaths from any class of persons ; and we had no knowledge of any ecclesiastical discipline by which Dr. Doyle, or any other Roman Catholic Bishop, was able in this matter to bind his successor.—(Hear, hear, from the Op ' position.) Unless they could put the case of the Church of Ireland upon higher grounds, they would make out a very bad case indeed. The question was, what should they substitute for the Church if they destroyed it, and could they hope to introduce a better state of things? The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) had entered into a long, historical disquisition concerning Ireland, and he said that for 250 years the Church of Ireland had not fulfilled its mission. Now he protested strongly against the injustice of resting the case of the Irish Church on the period of 250 years; they must go back to the fifth cen tury—the introduction of Christianity into that country. Let them look also at the bearing of the middle of the 12th century upon the destinies of Ireland, when all the ills of Ireland, inherent dissensions, lawless passions, lust of unjust and ecclesiastical tyranny, combined together to produce, in unhappy union, the bull of Adrian, the in vasion of Henry, the landing of Strongbow, and the subjugation of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He would next speak on a subject which he considered had been almost untouched by any Hon. Gentleman on that side who had yet spoken in the course of the debate. He meant the real, practical, every-day grievances, sorrows, and deprivations of the poorer classes of the Irish people—and in speaking of the poor of Ireland, he begged to be understood as alluding to the frieze coats—not to the men of broad cloth. The first of those evils to which ho would call attention, and which he had witnessed in his part of Ire land—Clare and Limerick—was the poor-law. This evil consisted in the inequality of the rate as levied upon the poor collier and the consequent difficulty of collecting it. If one half the att en ti on h a d b een pai d to the Irish poor-law which had been bestowed upon the Arms Bill —(Cheers from the Opposition)—by Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House—(Derisive cheers from the Ministerial benches)—much good would have been effected. The next grievance of Ireland was the state of the medical charities there. That was a sub ject which demanded their most earnest and immediate consideration. The third evil was the progress of the Board of Public Works which ,he was sorry to say had been curtailed; and lastly, the exactions under the name of tolls, to which the peasantry were subjected in bringing their commodities to market, closed the list of grievances which the poor of Ireland had to endure Those were evils which, from his own experience, he knew to press heavily upon the frieze coats of Ireland. As for the miserable Whigs, the peasantry of Ireland cared nothing for them. The only way in which they (the Whigs) had interested the poor of Ireland, was by letting convicts out of prison, when they were in office. Their Lord Lieutenant had inflicted more mis chief on that country than any other individual that had ever held office there.—(Marked signs of disapprobation from the Opposition, which were accompanied by groans. The Marquis of Normanby was sitting at the time on the benches appropriated to Members of the House of Lords.) The conduct of that Viceroy showed that his sole object was to court a ridiculous, ostentatious, and fleeting popularity.—(Groans from the Opposition.) He had never known any man act so badly—so profli gately.—(Loud cries of" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Yes, but the best comment upon the policy of Lord Nor manby was the policy pursued by his successor Lord Fortescue. Did he follow his example?--(Loud cries of " Question, question.") Hon. Members might cry ques tion, but what was the question ? The Noble Lord, the Member for London, might fancy, at the commencement of the debate, that he was forwarding the interests of his party, but he thought that the opinions of the Noble Lord must now be changed—not merely from the sentiments expressed by Members on that side of the House, but from the speeches made by his own supporters. The Whig ranks were com pletely divided and broken; they could unite upon nothing, and the only question they hoped to agree upon was Ireland ; and if the Tories were turned out of office what could be expected from a Whig Govern ment ? Where were their principles? Where was their object? He professed he could see none. The Anti-Corn-law League—the Repeaters—the Radicals— all these had principles and objects; but you wretched Whigs, flattering and coquetting, and gaining nothing for yourselves but contempt—you are objects of public deri sion.—(Laughter and ironical cheers from the Opposition.) You are like certain public characters who survive their reputations.—(Renewed laughter.) Mr. O'Connell had told thousands of the Irish people that the British Par liament they could not trust. He (Mr. O'Brien) would re-echo that sentiment, and if the Hon. Member for Cork inclined to quote the opinions of so humble an individual as himself, he was at perfect liberty to do so. Mr. O'Connell had told the Irish peo ple to trust to themselves—that sentiment, too, he (Mr. O'Brien) echoed. They might destroy the Church—they might overthrow the institutions of the country—but they would be followed by a law stronger, wider and more enduring than all the laws of men—a law which would tell the people of Ireland— and every people on th e earth, that it was with nations as with individuals, that prosperity and happiness could be conferred by no law. Happiness could not be forced upon the people. The people of every rank and class mast combine to teach and practise order—to inculcate obedience to the laws, and to give a high tone to public feeling. If this happy union were effected, happiness would be achieved, but agi tation, however peaceful, would leave the nation where it found it—in discontent and disorder. Sir THOMAS WILDE wished to call the attention of the House to the real question before the House, which had been obscured by the risible speech of the Hon. Gentleman who preceded him. The motion of the Noble Lord was to form a Committee to consider the state of Ireland. Whoever had paid any attention to what had occurred in Ireland lately must know whether such a motion was fitted for the present occasion or not. He did not mean to say that Ireland presented any new state, but surely Ireland could not be suffered to continue in the same unfortunate condition in which it had been so long, and it was imperative on the British Parliament to give their most serious attention to the condition of that country. Among the complaints of the Irish people was one that the British Parliament were indifferent to their real complaints and distresses. He thought the attention that had been bestowed on the present debate by the House generally, and by the Right Hon. Gentle man at the head of her Majesty's Government in parti cular, must repel any complaint on this, score. He thought it very wise and proper that the House should hear what Hon. Members had to impart regarding the condition- of Ireland, and what remedies might be sug gested. When they considered the character of that country in - respect to her soil and resources, and the many eminent and virtuous persons that it produced, it was truly lamentable to reflect on her present distressed state ; it was material to consider how that country could be governed in a proper manner. It might be said that the character of the people was pecu liar, but it was therefore the more necessary to suit the Government to their character. A Government which could not do that, Ivo little worthy of - iopport. dissolution of the union. If the Government was not pre pared to show how Ireland could be governed in a state of peace and prosperity—if they were not prepared to alter their policy, then it became most important that the country should consider what would be the result of such a state of thirgs.—(Elear.) He would now refer to a' topic which had been touched upon by gentlemen on both sides of 'the . House, which was, that the people of Ireland did not place confidence in the present Government. He believed that a large proportion of those in Ireland who were interested most in the subjects respecting which complaints were made, did not entertain confidence in the present Government. They found that large meetings had been held in Ireland which had excited the greatest alarm. Did the Govern ment entertain alarm at those meetine.s? 'He presumed that they did. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had been the means of calling those meetings from first to last, had declared that he did not mean to break the law. In the other House of Parliament those meetings were declared to be illegal, and yet what was the policy of the Government with respect to them? Could any man imagine why they did not interfere to stop them ? It might be asked how were they to stop 'them ? Why, how did they stop them at last ? Why, hewould ask, did they allow those meetings to continue for nine months ? The moment the Government issued their proclamation, that moment the meetings ceased—that moment the individual who had been instrumental in causing those meetings, felt it to be his duty to use the utmost exertion to repair the fault of the Government, and to make up for their delay, and to prevent public mischief. The moment the proclamation was issued it was obeyed. What reason had they to suppose that a similar proclamation issued earlier would not have allayed all the, anxiety and alarm that arose from those meetings? Was it that they preferred destroying an individual to preserving the peace of Ireland?—(Cheers.) . Was it for the pur pose of laying a trap to catch a political opponent? They were willing to let the spirit of rebellion grow up for many months. They were willing to permit dis affection to arise, and they made no attempt to arrest its progress. They had prepared themselvqs with troops to put down violence when it should break out into open acts, but they had permitted that spirit of disaffection to spread and increase. Had they done this merely for the purpose of giving their reporters an opportunity of catching heated and inflammotory sen tences that were uttered here and . there, and now and then? Was that a proper course of policy .to pursue?— (Hear, hear.) If the , Government - had felt that the meetings which had been held in Ireland were incon sistent with the public interest and public safety, they ought to have made an effort to repress them ? What, however, did they do ? They permitted the people of Ireland to suppose that those meetings were unobjec tionable and lawful. They were not disturbed. They were permitted to extend and grow, and the people of Ireland were thus seduced into the idea that these meet- ir gs were consistent with the law. This was it — serious charge against the Government.. It had been laid down from the Bench that men who had attended the last meeting could be taken as having adopted all the senti ments promulgated at the other meetings for the pre vious nine months ? Thus an innocent man who hap pened to be present at the last meeting found himself in the situation of being charged with the adoption of violent expressions— expressions • which had sub jected the parties to a very serious prosecution. It was allowed upon all hands that if Mr. O'Connell had not exerted himself to preserve the peace at Clon tarf, a crisis would have arrived, which he could not ac cuse the Government of contemplating, and he was cer tain that the poor people who crowded there never anticipated.—(Cheers.) The meeting was to take place on Sunday, and the proclamation was issued at three o'clock on the Saturday.—(Cheers.) Not all the world could convince him that the course taken by the Govern ment was impartial, or that there was any intention to show that they were disposed to govern Ireland im partially.—(Cheers.) Mr. O'Connell felt, and he would have been wrong if he did not feel, that upon him, would -rest the responsibility if any evil consequences had ensued.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) So soon as the Ministerial proclamation was issued Mr. O'Connell obeyed it, and he did the most difficult thing in the world, he compelled a discontented and irritable multitude to be as patient as he was himself.—(Cheers.) There had been many meetings, the result of which was merged in one, which might have been included in one count of the indictment.—(Hear, hear.) The'Right Honourable the Secretary for the Horne Depart ment had said that he did not stand there to defend the Coercion Bill of the late Government. He (Sir T. Wilde) should have thought that the Hon. Baronet, having been a party to that, was not . now going to shrink from the responsibility which at tached to it. Deeply as that Bill had to be lamented. its necessity at the time was undoubted ; and that ne cessity had been mainly created by the Tories them selves. The Whigs having comeinto power after a long series of Tory misgovernment, it took a long time to remedy the wrongs they had inflicted. And he strongly suspected it would be found a much more easy matter to defend the Coercion Bill than those prosecutions— (Cheers.) Such a law might be called for as a tem porary measure, but it formed no part of the Constitu tion.—(Hear, hear.) The evil lasted fora time, but the Constitution was not hurt.— (Cheers.) But when they came to stretch the law, as the Government had done in the present instance, for the destruction of public liberty, they then inflicted a wound —aye, an incurable wound—upon the Constitution.—(Cheers.) Let them look at the various Bills, Coercion Bills, Arms Bills, and others, which necessity required theni to pass from time to time, when the period arrived at which they could allow them to expire, the evil was at an end, and the general Constitution remained unhurt.—(Cheers.) But this prosecution would remain as a precedent, and when added to the many bad on es which already existed in our history, it would give an exam pl e t o Mi n i s t ers to d o that which he sincerely beli eve d it was f ar f rom t h e wish of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R: Peel) to at tempt. But the , precede n t was f urnis h e d , and most as suredly he (Sir rhos. Wilde) looked upon it as one most inconsistent with public liberty. If .Mr. O'Connell had uttered sedition--4ad spoken sedition in his speeches, published it in hi s wr i t i ngs, or prac ti se d it i n his conduct—or if he had by any other means excited the people to discontent and disaffection, then, by all means, let the Gov ernment indict him - for it. — ( H ear , hear.) If he had b y any illegal me a ns attempted to overawe the Gov ernment or. disturb the peace and sa f ety of the empire, l e t hi m, he repeated, be indicted. H e was amenable to the law for his conduct; but do not let them twist the law so as to make a charge of conspiracy and that under circum stances which might be ' afterwards used to prevent agitation by even the most legal means.—(Hear, hear.) His Honourable and Learned Friend the Soli citor-General had said something last evening about the late Government having something to do with indict ments as well as the present one. Not such indict ments as that on which h e was noW to, comment. He put it to his Hon. a n d L earned Friend 'whether it was was not true that the forms of indictment under which Mr. O'Connell had been tried had never come under the consideration of any one who had not lamented it? Throughout Westminster-hall it was detested, and to such cases as the one under consideration was now never applied in this country.—(Cheers.) Would his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General at tempt in England to indict a man, and get a verdict against him, for a speech he had never uttered, or for a paragraph in a newspaper which he had never seen?— (Loud cheers.) He asked his Learned Friend the plain question whether, in his long experience, he had ever known that form of i n di ctment even re f err ed to with out being stigmatised in the strongest terms of disap probation?—(Loud c h eers. ) Whoever a ttended Jo the form of that indi c t ment, and followe d it up by a con sideration of the -l aw , as l a id d own by the Lord Chief Justice, would rea dil y b e a bl e to see and to ap preciate its character. It c h arge d t h a t the traversers conspired to excite disaffection and hatred, and, by means of physical forc e , en d eavou red to overawe the. ef Legislature. The law, a s l a id down by the Lord Chief Justice, was, that if per sons a ssociated and combined to effect, by their joint efforts, an illegal object, or were com bined to effect a legal object by illegal mean, then they guilty of a breach of the law. He (Sir T. Wilde) did not except to that law, but he did e xcept to its application.—(Hear,hear.)o Hear N w he asked, had or had not the people of Ireland a right to meet to discuss their grievances and obtain a redress'of them? • He pre sumed the right to meet and disciiSis, and take measures for redress was not questioned ?—(Marks of assent from the Treasury benches.) . Why, did they ever hear of a meeting for the discussion of grievances where there was not discontent ? Where there was no discontent what was the object of the meeting?--- . .(Hear, hear.) Was it the privilege of the people only‘to meet to excite con tentment or originate affection?—(Cheers and laughter.) They might excite disaffection in a manner to make it unlawful, but it required great care in a judge when showing what ought to excite and what ought not to ex cite discontent. But the indictment against Mr. O'Con nell was, in fact, a perfect indictment for high treason. In the trial of Lord George Gordon, the very words in which this indictment was framed Were the words in which Lord Mansfield laid down the , law, that such at tempt was high treason; and this had been followed by overt acts. It therefore was a complete and perfect in dictment for high treason. But were these traversers the only persons m the empire who had, by their joint efforts, endeavoured to raise discontent and dis affection, and, by ovet awing the Legislature. to bring the la w into contempt ? What had been done in reference to the poor-law.—(Loud cheers.) What answer was to be made by certain lion. Members of that House when questioned as to their conduct and speeches touching the poor-law?—(Cheers.) What was to be said of the Times newspaper ? What of the papers - speeches and published by Mr. Oastler ?—(Great cheers.) Let them articles—and take the speeches of certain Hon. Members when upon the hustings, or at public meetings, in reference to the papers—letpoor-law.take e the TMintre.io leading astl r:s according to the law as administered to Mr. O'Connell, themet them tak there was as clear a conspiracy as ever was hatched.— (Cheers.) Look at what had been written and said of the slave trade, and of and on various other public measures—aye, and exciting and discontent between one branch of her Majesty's subjects and another. He said the English Parliament did not consider their interest, that it had no sympathy with them, that it did not legislate for their benefit ; and he had a right to say all that if he beiieved lit. He had a right, in order to induce the people to petition that House for a repeal of the union, to use those arguments, if he believed the union to be mischievous. But if he used those argu ments he was guilty of this act of conspiracy and sedi tion. Now, in describing the indictment for conspiring to do these several things, the Learned Judge gives this direction—" It is true the indictment sets forth certain overt acts, but no one of these acts need be proved— the crime consisted in the agreement, not the acts." Therefore though not one of these acts should be proved, still the traversers might be guil4.- v of conspiracy. Having by this mode rendered the acts comparatively unimportant, he says to the jury f' you may infer the' agreement from these persons acting in cow on and rBE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEtiIiEJARY 21, 1844. if you find a newspaper writing articles in favour of Mr. O'Connell and reporting his speeches, you may use that against the newspaper to prove they were conspiring with Mr. O'Connell, and you may use Mr. O'Connell's speech, as reported, as evidence of his conspiring with the newspaper." Now, nobody could approve of the lan guage that had been used by the lion. and Learned Member who was the subject of the prosecution. No one could approve of the meetings that had been called together, because it did not appear that they they were calculated to effect any good bona fide object.—(Hear, bear, from the Ministerial benches.) They were un doubtedly dangerous, not from any intention on the part of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, or on the part of the people, to break the peace ; but such a number of persons meeting together was so liable to sudden in flammation—so likely to be operated on by unexpected causes, that they were likely to endanger the public peace.—(H ear , h ear , f rom the Ministerial benches.) He also much disapproved of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man referring to the old stories of supposed English oppression, for the purpose of leading to the conclusion that England was unfavourable to the Irish, and that the continuance of the union was not likely to be pro ductive of happiness to Ireland. He disapproved of this language, just as much agthe disapproved of the frequent referrences to " Fox's Book of Martyrs" by those Hon. Gentlemen who set up the "No Popery' cry. One was just as improper as the qther, but no one had thought of indicting those Hon. Gentlemen. But what England had to beware of was this—she had to see that in cases which might excite disapprobation, the law was not violated or perverted to what might be used, on other occasions, for a totally different object. Now, an indictment for holding a public meeting calculated to excite discontent and disaffection was a most dangerous indictment to trust to the hands of the Government in a country so divided by party as Ireland. It was a form of indictment which imposed on the Government that used it the deepest responsibility for a careful watch over the administration of justice. He had referred to that part of the indictment charging the traversers with an attempt to overawe the Legislature. In his judgment it was as great a perversion of the law as could be imagined. He had already alluded to the indictment against Lord George Gordon. He was indicted for overawing the Legislature. In his case, 20,000 persons assembled in St. George's Fields, there having been riots before that meeting. These 20,000 persons beset the House of Commons, f orce d th e i r way into the lobby, and personally threatened the Members, so that it was scarcely possible for them to get access to the House, and they kept up their threatenings to such a degree that the House could not proceed with its business. For this he was indicted for attempting to overawe the Legislature, for putting them in apprehension of immediate personal violence. But what had they here ? Numbers of per sons meeting at a distance across the Channel, at a time when Parliament was not sitting—when there was no apprehension, and no possibility of its Members suffering from personal violence. But the Hon. Gentleman said that overawing the Legislature meant such an exhibi tion of numbers as would lead the Government to sup. -pose that, at a future day, by the operation of their opinion, or if they liked by their acts, the. Legislature might think it advisable to _pass a certain measure. H e would appeal to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to tell them on what grounds was it that he passed the Eman cipation Bill?—(Loud cheers.) Upon that express ground—public opinion. Now, how could they get a great expression of public opinion? Could people send their opinions to a meeting, and leave their bodies at home? He contended that overawing the Legislature was causing an apprehension of physical force to be directed against the persons of the Members. The ap prehension of a distant rebellion was not overawing the Legislature. What meeting might they not say was an exhibition of great numbers for the purpose of overawing the Legislature ? It had been said that the mere numbers of a meeting made it illegal. Why, for the same reason, they might as well say that some races were illegal--that the Queen's coronation was il legal. It was numbers, - combined with other circum stances, such as the object of the meeting, and whether its conduct was calculated to excite alarm in minds rea sonably firm. Look at the meetings they had had in England. What great alteration of any great public grievance was ever obtained without agitation ?—(Hear, hear.) Did Government ever alter that of which the people did not complain? All Goverments were and ought to be conservative.—(Hear, hear.) It was for the safety of the people that they were so, therefore they did not alter that with which the people were contented. But sometimes Governments required too much impelling. With all respect to the Right Hon. Baronet; he thought that he had required too much before he granted Catholic Emancipation. They ought not to wait till rebellion was at their heels before they altered that which ought to be altered, and if it ought not to be altered, he took it for granted it would not be. The indictment for overawing the Legislature, therefore, on the ground of meetings being held across the Channel at a time when Parliament was not sitting, was not an overawing of the Legislature within the law. The Noble Lord, the Member for London, had defined the Origin of - the law of conspiracy to be one applied to a private conspiracy to charge others with committing crimes. ---(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said that this prosecution was con• ducted according to the common law of the kingdom. What was that common la* ? He believed that they would find the liberties of England buried in their Courts by this common law.—(Hear, hear.) This re minded him of an anecdote related in Roger North's - "Life of Lord Guilford." Seeing that King James was in the habit of conversing with, and confiding in, Judge Jeffries, he - represented to the King that Jeffries was a man of a very violent temper, and very dangerous to confide in, and said that he himself would do all that the King wanted by law if he left the matter to him.— (Cheers.) All that a bad and profligate Government might desire could be done by the law of indietment.-- 7 (Hear.) What had been the course pursued with regard to this indictment ? He could not do better than de scribe it in the language of one of the public journals. —(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read a pas sage from the Morning Post, to the effect that making newspaper proprietors responsible for words not spoken by them, and making public speakers responsible for articles not written by them, produced so, confused a charge that it ought not to be brought against any subjects of a free Constitution, and a verdict obtained under such circumstances would produce no moral effect whatever.—The reading of the passage was followed by loud cheers.) Such was the character of this indict ment. If the design of the Government was to put down what they called agitation, and to punish the Hon. and Learned Gentleman for illegal acts which he com mitted, it could have been accomplished without such an indictment, by charging each of the traversers in dividually, and making each responsible for his own acts alone. But here was the press of the mecaynfo those ras s country, whi c h cou ld on l y ex i st b y g i v i ng pu bli c infor mation on inter es ti ng events , prosecute d for a conspi racy, ill oc e i . a g t a i l ng me to an p s r c o o c n u si re st l in egal g of objects by v y illegaliolent speeches made in the absence of the proprietors of the public journals in which they were reported. The law of conspiracy was grossly.wrested in this case, and a bad precedent was created.—(Cheers.) Here were editors prosecuted for speeches which they never read, and speakers prosecuted for articles which they never wrote.—(Plear.) The law as underitood was this, that there must be an agreement between the persons charged with conspiracy. Of course they might prove agree ment by a variety of means, and it was not necessary that the agreement should be actually proved by some person who was present, for if that were necessary, conspiracy would be a perfectly safe crime. They might prove it from acts and circumstances. As, for example, if they found, as i n t h e case of the 0. P . riot, persons with the letters 0. P. in their hats going to the theatre, creating a tumult, and interrupting the per formance, it showed a design from which it might be reasonably inferred that there was a previous agreement Between the parties; but it was a perversion of the law to treat as a proof of conspiracy that parties assembled together at public meetings with a common attempt. They might as well say that it was evidence of conspiracy if the pit of a theatre had simultaneously hissed.—(Cheers.) As be said before, it was not neces sary to prove previous agreement. If there were such circumstances attending meetings as that persons met in the same place on successive days with the same em blems, they might infer a common agreement. But no distinction of the kind was made here, for the jury were told, in the first place, in express terms, that no one of the • overt acts need be proved. They need not, however, it was said, have proof of their agreement and so on, but they might infer that from these very acts ;or they, were first told that those acts were not to be proved at all, but that the whole crime consisted in the agreement, and then they were referred back again to the acts in evidence of the agree ment. The indictment was for endeavouring to excite public discontent and disaffection ; no attempt was made to assign the limit within which Irishmen and Englishmen might manifest dissatisfaction, and that which amounted to a legal crime. The indictment was, in itself, a most dangerous proceeding.—(Hear, hear.) He did not say that its form was new, buthe did say that its application to the facts of the case was perfectly new.— (Hear.) Now how had this indictment been prosecuted? —(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He did arraign the cohduct of this prosecution, most undoubtedly. He was not at all disposed to say anything unkind or illibe ral, or disrespectful in the slightest degree of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ire land ; but he did feel it his duty to urge a most serious complaint against the conduct of this prosecution.— (Hear.) He said that the Government were implicated —he used the word Government, not as denoting the in dividuals of whom it was composed, but the Government generally responsible—and he maintained that they were most seriously implicated.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. O'Con nell, he averred and stated with the utmost firmness, had no fair trial.—(Great cheering from the Opposition benches.) His Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor- General said last night that that was no proper place to discuss how fax the verdict was consistent with the evidence—an observation which he (Sir T. W.) took the liberty of cheering. He then went on to say—having said it would be very improper to discuss it there—that he defied anybody to get up and say that the verdict was not consistent with the evidence.—(Laughter,) He (Sir T. Wilde) had heard some new constitutional doctrines in that House. He was happy to see the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) in his place. lie begged to ask, for in formation, where the Noble Lord had learned that new constitutional principle, that it was indecent in a lawyer to arraign in that House the conduct of the judges ? (Hear, hear.) He had heard from his Learned - Friend the Solicitor-General, that there were Acts of Parlia ment which they had no right to discuss there. With all respect, both for th e Noble Lord and for his. Hon. and Learned Friend, he begged to say that a more out rageous or unfounded doctrine he had never heard. Pray, Sir, continued the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, what is the first duty of this House ? To watch the administration of justice in this country. You had— whether you have now inform, I do not know—but you had a Committee of Justice, and I say, with all respect for the Noble Lord, that it is the especial duty of this House, to watch over the conduct of the judges. The public were deeply interested in the character and con duct of the judges. It was of essential importance that those criminals who had misconducted themselves, and were tried for the crimes which they had committed, should be able to respect the judges before whom they were arraigned.—(Hear, hear.) The object of a con viction was to operate upon the individual beneficially on his future conduct, and that could never be done if he had no respect for the judge before whom he was tried. —(Hear.) Although he admitted, therefore, that it was exceedingly improper to make indecent remarks with respect to judges, in the spotlessness of whose cha racter the lower orders—those who are most often brought under their jurisdiction—were so deeply inte rested; yet he maintained that, on an occasion like this, when.the question was whether the Government had committed a great error in the conduct of a pro secution, when they had to consider whether that pro secution had been fairly conducted; and when the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet talked loudly of the vindication of the dignity of the law, they ought not to have their mouths stopped by being told that, if they entered upon the subject, it would be a profanation of the law ?—(Cheers.) This was not a common case.— (Hear, hear.) He hoped that parts of this case would become subjects for specific inquiry. It was in volved in the greatest suspicion. He said there was more than suspicion that unfair play had been practised.—(Hear, hear.) How was he to know whether he could agree with the statement of the Noble Lord and his Hon. and Learned Friend—that the dignity of the law had been vindicated ?—(Hear, hear.) Was he to take it for granted upon their assertion? He had the greatest respect for them, but they would excuse him if, in a matter of that sort, he presumed, though a lawyer— (Laughter)—to entertain and express an opinion as to the conduct of the judges. But why;were lawyers to be excluded?—(Hear, hear.) Was it because they were supposed to know something about it ?—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) It was strong language to use to a Member of that House to charge him with indecency in remarking upon the, conduct of a judge in the dis charge of his Parliamentary duty. Mr. O'Connell's case mixed itself up with the public interest—it by no means rested upon an ordinary footin g . The good or the evil which they had done depe n d e d upon the character of the prosecution.—(Hear ' hear.) If they had p r o secu t e d Mr. O'Connell, though he might have been guilty of some offences; if they had profaned the temple of justice instead of vindicating its honour; if they had sent him to trial expressly to be convicted, then he said they had done that, which he was chargedwith having done, but done with - infinitely greater effect. They had de stroyed the confidence of the Irish people in the admi nistration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Learned Judge laid down the definition of the law of conspiracy, if he (Sir Thomas Wilde) might presume to say so, with perfect confidence, and he stated that he had the concurrence of his brother Judges in the doctrines which he so laid down. That had nothing whatever to do with that Learned Judge's course in the summing up of the case.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear" from the Opposition.) If he expressed himself strongly on this subject, he had no intention of departing from the respect which was due to that Learned Judge. But he asked if the summing up of the Learned Judge had not rather the characteristics of a speech of counsel than of what it was intended to be. It was deficient in all that belonged to its proper office.—(Hear, hear.) He begged to call the Right Hon. Baronet's attention to the circumstance that Mr. O'Connell's defence consisted in this—at least one part of his case was—" You charge me with uttering certain expressions with a certain in tent. It is true, you have selected certain passages and sentences from my speeches, but I call on you to read the whole of those speeches ; and when you read the whole, those particular sentences will be qualified." Now what man's speeches could stand the test of particular seatences extracted here and there ? " Read the whole," said the counsel for the defence ; and accordingly the greater portion of the time occupied by the trial was taken up in reading the whole of the speeches. Yet not one sentence of what the counsel for the defence got read, had formed a portion of the Learned Judge's summing-up. —(Hear, hear.) The Learned Solicitor-General had got the particular passages on which the Government—and he did not use the word in an offensive sense, he meant those to whom the con duct of the prosecution was intrusted—the Solicitor-Gene ral had got the particular passages on which the Govern ment relied, selected and printed, and as he read them in reply, the Learned Judge said, " hand them up to me." Up they went, and they were read and summed up to the jury. —(Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) Such parts as were most violent were thus read without any parts which qualified them, and which formed part of the traversers ' defence.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir T. Wilde) was one of those who laboured under the infirmity of believing, that the greatest injustice was done to persons charged with any crime or offence, by the accuser having got, in his right of reply, the last word. Let ever so powerful a speech be made for a prisoner in his defence—let the evidence be ever so fa vourable to his case, yet when the 'speech' in reply comes and after it the Learned Judge's summing up, he must, say that juries—who were not generally composed of persons whol were taught to bear in mind and analyse speeches—were almost certain to have the speech for the defence entirely obliterated from their minds, and to have quite forgotten it. Those paragraphs, that were used in the course of the prosecu tor's case, were again read, at least a fortnight after the passages which qualified, explained, and softened them down, and gave evidence of the motives with which they had been uttered.—(Hear.) No distinct directions were given marking the boundary oflegitimate agitation. He used the word agitation as a short one to express his meaning. There was no direction to distinguish that right which could never be too narrowly watched, whe ther in the case of Mr. O'Connell or anybody else. The Government had watched those men for nine months, on a subject upon which they were deeply interested, and placed in a situation of great excitement, and on which their feelings warmed by collision—as the feelings of an Irishman were always excited when he talked of his country. Why, let them adopt a similar course with even any Honourable Member of that House who spoke in debate, and what would be the consequence ? He would take, for instance, one of the most amiable Mem- bers in the House—the Noble Lord—(the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was supposed to allude to Lord J. Russell)—and would any one dream that the respect and esteem in which he knew his Noble Friend was held out of that House, would be damaged by any accidental expression he might let fall in the heat of the debate ? Well, then, those passages which could have modified the parts relied on by the Crown having been read, a whole fortnight elapsed, during which, speeches of Counsel were delivered for five or six hours a day each, and how was it possible that, when they had been omitted from the summing up, they could have that effect upon the jury which it was intended, and which they ought to have had ? Then with respect to the summing up, to which he prayed attention. The Rev. Mr. Tierney, one of the traversers, had attended one of these meetings, and adopted all that had gone before. He had, also, a little pet meeting of his own.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. Sheil.) Language of similar import to that used on former occasions was used upon this, and yet the strong passages alone were summed up, and those which would modify their effect were left out. Was that the way in which a judge should vindicate the dignity of the law, and cause it to have a conciliatory effect upon the minds of the Irish people ? Was it not rather calcu lated to give them the idea of the traversers being per secuted than that they were fairly dealt with ? He was mistaken if much did not remain to be discussed with respect to this trial. He took it for granted that the verdict would not be permitted to stand without being impugned before the proper tribunal. But that was not all. The House had been managed by some dexterity to be led into a certain degree of confusion respecting the composition of the particular jury. He begged to call the attention of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland, particularly to this part of of the case. He must say that, with all respect to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he grossly mistook that which was the interest of the Government—he used the word Government for country—respecting the con duct of those prosecutions. First of all there was con siderable ambiguity relating to this part of the subject. The old jury-list was thought very inadequate to fur nish the means of a fair trial. The traversers, there- fore, took proper measures tq,have the jury-list made up for the year 1844. The House had already learned that it was the custom of certain parish officers to make returns of the persons qualified to act as jurors in the respective districts. They then went to the Hon. and Learned Recorder of Dublin, and it was his duty to as certain all those persons that were qualified to serve, and to distinguish between these qualified to serve on common and on special juries. With respect to special juries, some remarks were made by the Right Hon. Ba ronet which certainly struck him (Sir T. Wilde) with surprise, and that was, that the striking of a special jury was an advantage to the traversers. Why if he were to make such an assertion in West minster Hall they would laugh in his face.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said they had done this out of mercy to the defendants—because with tt special jury each party struck off by turns, but with the common jury the law officers of the Crown could order as many to stand by as they pleased. They knew very well that if they had a common jury they could not have ordered men to stand by as they pleased.—(Loud cheers.) They knew very well that if with a panel of 72 they had, when the name of John Thomas was called, ordered John Thomas to stand aside they would have been asked why ? If they had ordered another man to stand by they would again be asked why ? How long would you have dared to have gene on in such a course?—(Loud cheers.) They dared not to have done it—(Counter cheering)—and it was because they dared not do it that they had struck a special jury.—(Loud cheers.) They struck off the twelve names of a special jury in a private room. They must have challenged the common jury men in the open Court.—(Cheers.) They did not try the defendants before a common jury because they were afraid.—(Cheers.) They chose a special jury because they could make sure that there should be no Catholic on it. They could not avoid that on a common jury. The thing had been dexterously and designedly ma. naged for the purpose of sending these men to convic tion—(Cheers)—by the underlings who had struck and prepared the jury list.—(Hear.) Those lists had been settled by the Recorder, who, as he went through the list, placed a mark against the names for the purpose of distinguishing special jurymen from common . jurymen. The revision of those lists must have occasioned the Right Hon. Gentleman considerable anxiety. Never had the Court of Dublin before presented such a scene. The revision was at length completed, and when appli cation was made by the traversers to see the lists they were told that the Right Mon. Gentleman bad taken them with him to England. Mr. SHAW—That is not so. It is quite untrue. Sir T. WILDE dill not doubt for one moment what the Right Hon. Gentleman said, but lid Sir Thomas Wilde), the cause of the people of gng, relied upon the affidavit which had been produced upon the trial.— (Loud cheers.) He did not know whether the Right Hon. Gentleman was unapprised of the • nature of that affidavit—(Cheers)—or whether he was absent from Dublin at the time of the trials, but that affidavit had been read in the open Court. Mr. SHAW—Whose affidavit ? Sir THOS. WILDE was surprised at being called upon in , that manner to s t a t e whose affidavit it was, and when it had been read. It was the affidavit of the at torney for the traversers, and Mr. Mahoney stated that on applying at the office for copies of-the lists as re vised by the Right Hon. Gentleman Mr. SHEIL—The parochial lists. Sir THOS. WILDE—The parochial lists—lists from which the general list was framed—he received for an swer that the Right Hon. Gentleman bade gone to Eng land and taken the lists with him. Mr. SHAW—I never did. Sir THOS. WILDE did not mean to say that he had —he would only say that it had been sworn to in CoUrt, and not been contradicted. (The Hon. and Learned Gentleman searched for some time among his papers, but was unable to find the affidavit.) He feared he had it not with him, but he would state the substance of it. It was the affidavit of Mr. Mahoney read, on the application to quash the proceedings, on the ground that the Jury had been struck from an imperfect list, and in which he stated, that as soon as the revision was over application had been made, on the part of the traversers, at the Right Hon. Gentleman's office for a sight of the jury lists, and that the answer was , th a t the Right Hon. Gentleman had gone to England and that he had taken the jury lists with him.—(Cheers.) Notice had been given to the traversers to attend to join in striking the 48 jurymen, and up to that time they had never seen the jury lists.—(Cheers.) When they went to strike, a question occurred respecti ng th ose li sts , as it appeared that the list from which the 48 had been struck did not contain the names of all those persons whom the Right Hon. Gentleman had adjudged as qualified to serve.— (Loud cheers.) They had proceeded however to strike the special jury, under protest, when an application was made to the Queen's Bench to quash the panel, on the ground of the incompleteness of the lists. On that occa sion affidavits had been made in support of the application, and he would read the affidavit of Mr. Mahoney, which he feared he had mislaid, but which he had since found. (Hear, hear.) (The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read the affidavit sworn by Mr. Mahoney, on the occa sion alluded to. The deponent stated that the. revision of the lists commenced on the 14th, and was finished on the 23d ; that the Attorney-Genartl had applied to have the 11th December fixed as the day for the trial 'at bar • that application was then made to postpone the trial on account of the imperfect state of the jury lists ; and that eventually an order had been made that the trial should commence on the 15th January, and that the jury should be taken from the lists for 1844 ; that when the revision had been finished on the 23d November, the Recorder should have caused the general list of the proper persons qualified to be drawn out, and should have delivered the list to the Clerk of the Peace, who should have copied the same into the jury book, and delivered the same to the Sheriff. The deponent made application to the Clerk of the Peace, at his office, to ascertain if • the said books were finally prepared, and was informed that the Recorder was absent in London, and that he had with him several do cuments necessary for the preparation of the said jurors' list—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from the Opposition) —and from which, when fairly delivered by the Re corder, the Clerk of the Peace made his jurors' book. He was at length informed that the Bat was not de livered up until the 29th of December ; and on the same day the Clerk of the Peace caused the jurors' book to be delivered to the Sheriff. How was the office of the Clerk of the Peace conducted ?—(Hear, hear.) How was so important an office managed if when, on applica tion to the proper functionary, he was told that the list was not there, but that the Recorder had the list in London?—(Hear.) Mr. SHAW—Not the list. Sir T. WILDE—The Right Hon. Gentleman may cavil at the word list, or at any other name—bit that the list-- Mr. SHkW—N.. Not the list.—(Cries If " Order.") Sir T. WILDE—Sir, it is named the list, and the list was absent. Mr. SHAW—I repeat what I have already stated.—(Cries of " Order, order," and confusion.) Sir T. WILDE—Then I will read from the affidavit spin. " Ho (deponent) was informed that the Recorder was absent in London, and had with him several documents necessary for the preparation of the jury list."—( Hear, hear.) Mr. SHAW—The list—( Renewed and vehement cries of " Order, order.") Sir T. WILDE—I tell the Right Hon. Gentleman again he may carp at the word list—let him call it document of_Laper, or anything el se b e pl eases , t h e su b stance i s the same. Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Is there any doubt of it ? as it not been sworn to by the officer, who says-.." The documents necessary for the preparation of th e jury list the Recorder ba d with him in London."—Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Op position.) Of all the gross faults ever committed, there never was one grosser than this. There never was a trial at which it was more important the proceedings should be above suspi cion than this._( Hear, hear.) It was quilt clear that the do cuments had not been in their proper place. Hear.) They were not accessible at the proper times to the proper parties. How did that happen ? How came those officials to invent so false a statement ?—( Hear, bear.) Who dared to behave so improperly as to say that the Recorder. had the list in London when he had not ?—(Loud cries of " Hey; hear," and ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Why wb it that when the Recorder had left all things in order in his office, those per sons who were entitled to inspect them were not allowed to do so, but the public officer made fictitious statements?—( Hear, hear.) How dare they say that the Recorder had the lists in London when he had not ?—( Hear, hear,) Yes, he repeated the question. He would again read from The aillislavit When a summons to strike off a special jury bad .been served, the de ponent lost no time in applying to the Sheriff for a copy orthe special jury panel, and which should have contained the names of all persons properly 9ualified to serve on the jury ; th a t t h e Sheriff declined complying with deponent's application unless with the consent of the counsel for the Crop; and the counsel for the traversers." What • ight bad the Crown to interfere to prevent the traversers from seeing the document ?—( Hear, hear.) Why should the public officer interfere with the Crown, or why should the Crown interfere to prevent the tra versers from obtaining their right ?—( Hear. ) Mr. SHAW—They had no right.—(Order.) Sir T. WILDE—Sir, I submit that they had a right— (Hear, hear.) As British subjects about to be put upon their trial, they bad a right to see it. Mr. SHAW—No. Sir T. WILDE—I won't pledge myself to it, but I believe they had a right. Mr. SHAW—Certainly not.—(Load cries of " Order.") Sir T. WILDE—I believe a recent Act of Parliament gives that right. Mr. - SHAW—Decidedly not.—(Renewed cries of " Order," and confusion.) Sir T. WILDE repeated his impression, and proceeded to say that if the documents were public, why were they not to be seen 7.-( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, reels if the law were all his own way, would surely not say that the subject had not a right to see the jury list, which bad been made out according to the Recorder's- adiiglication. What Hon. Member would refuse it, or say it ought co be refaced?-- ( Hear, hear.) What honourable or honest motive could there be for the refusal ?—( Hear, hear.) What security could there be for the independent discharge of their duty as public officers, if they required the satiation of the public officers in order to do their duty? Every step in this trial presented exactly the same features.—( Hear, hear.) The deponent applied to Mr. Kemmis for his consent, which he declined to give; and that refusal was followed by so much irregularity—such palpable irregularity—as not to leave any character for fairness or impartiality in the proceedings. Tile deponent next stated that he went to the offiee of Mr. Walter Bourne, for the purpose of striking i jury, and Mr. Whiteside applied for the traversers to have a postponement, on the ground that they bad no opportunity of examining the jury list, and that they were therefore ,unprepared to enter upon the matter at the time. The adjournment was agreed to by Mr. Brewster until both parties could get a copy of the jury list from the Sheriff, and the 3d of January was fixed: On examining the list on that day, it was found that the names of many qualified persons bad been omitted from the special jury list, who had been admitted by the Recorder at his revi sion ; and the deponent, in company with one of the traverser', went again to the office of the said Walter Bourne, and yr°. tested against any proceeding respecting striking a jury, on the ground that there had been a gross suppression of the names of persons qualified to be placed upon the jury, and the deponent was convinced that a wilful and cer ruin suppression had taken place." This was a portion of the affidavit of the traverser,' attorney before the special jury was struck, stating that there had been corrupt and wilful omis sions of certain names. Now, forsooth, the Crown, to be ore, was most anxious to have a fair jury list mad* out !—( . Loud laughter.) He would ask, judging from the reports of what had taken place in the Court, if ever any human being bad ever observed a stronger affidavit ? He knew something of the law, and he would say that no common case, such as the Noble Lord thought would furnish a rule of precedent for an at torney, was applicable to the present case. Why, if it had been a common action for 51. in one of„ the miner courts, if the attorney on either side milt-- an affidavit, stating that there had been corrupt practices in striking the jury, the Court would at once pat off the trial.—(Loud cheers.) But there being a great State prosecution to vindi cate the dignity of the law—( Hear, hear)- , 4 trial which was to produce a great moral effect, an affidavit was pet in by the traversers agent imputing corrufition to the mode in vitich the jury had been constituted, whilst the Crown never made the slightest inquiry into the charge. He thought this course was likely to lower the respect and confidence of the public in the fair and impartial administration of justice in any case, but how much the more so was it the case the present instance ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) • He thought it was most essential that the rown should' have postponed striking the special jury until the list hadbeen made correct according to the adjudication of the Recorder, but the person acting for the Crown refused to allow this. He felt con fident that no fair attorney, of ever such low practice, would be guilty of such a course,—(Cheers, and laughter.) But when it was done by the law o ffi cers of the Crown, he should ask the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, was the Govern= meat a party to those foul transactions? He cared nothing about the distinction which was attempted to be drawn between the thief and the receiver. You (said the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, pointing to the Ministerial benches) have milled yourselves of this disreputable transaction.— (Tremendous cheering.) Was the majesty of the law vindi cated by tampering w i t h th e j ur y list.—(Hear, hear.) He should ask Why take advantage of this irregularity and error?— (Cheers.) If such an instance were to occur in Westminster,. would my Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, the Attorney. General for England, take advantage of it ?--( Hear, hear, and cheers.) What would have been his conduct? Let West-' minster Hall answer that question.—(Cheers.) It would have been that of an honourable officer of the Crown, vindi cating its dignity, and who remembered that no verdict in the case of a Government prosecution could produce any effect except the tribunal was beyond suspicion —(Cheers.) Why. his Hon. and Learned Friend in a trial last week, when he ap peared on behalf of the Crown to recover . P essi" ' glege defoa.td at torney for the defendant complained of some proceedings, and his Right Hon. Friend Jidge to put off the trial.—( - cheers '? and the most belie. straight forward course had been pursued in W . a es, respecting and obey. once c e n ag e l t n othe ficial results arose from it, by t t h i e ofie oe d eP t tl attheygot justice.— ing the law, ffidavit of the traverser' agent to read an extract from th e a (Cheers.) to the following effect • .—Several gentlemen whose names, The for t Hon. hey we re aslL aa earned Gentleman then proceeded were entit • led to have their names upon the jury list, were in attendance at the o ffi ce of Mr. Bourne to prove the fact of their claim not being allowed, and he refused to bear their evidence, and instead drew the forty .eight names, when the agent entered his protest against the course. At the • end of the affidavit there appeared the names of fifteen jurors who had been adjudicated upon by the Recorder as to !eV ' led ale -. ...1ik