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

lieve that the. Government were sincere in the profes sions of impartiality which they had made. The Noble Earl (Roden) who had been Grand Master of the Orange lodges, and whose conduct had been precisely similar to that of Mr. Holt Waring, had not been ap pointed to the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, yet there would have been the same consistency in such an ap pointment as that of Mr. Holt Waring to the deanery of Dromore. Lord WHARNCLIFFE--It would have been better if the Noble Lord had refrained from raking up matters which had occurred 20 or 25 years ago. He thought that, especially at the present time, it was better .to forget these things. Mr. Holt Waring had submitted respect fully to the resolution of the House of Commons,- and had acted in the spirit of that resolution. With re spect to the charges made against the present Govern ment, regarding Church appointments in Ireland, they had not made oue they were ashamed of, or which they were not prepared to justify. Lord CAMPBELL observed that the Noble Earl had stated that Mr. Holt Waring was appointed at a time when there was no agitation in Ireland. Earl of RIPON—I did not say so. Lord CAMPBELL—You said, when there was little agitation in Ireland. Earl of RIPON—What I said was _ _ Lord CAMPBELL—I beg the Noble Earl's pardon ; he certainly did say thP:t the appointment had been made at a time when there was little agitation. However, I shall be very harpy to hear the Noble Earl's expla nation. Earl of RlPt;_)N—Oh, no ! The Noble Lord may say what he I;:itoe s —l will not interrupt him. Lord CAMPBELL was sorry if he had misunderstood the EarL The Noble Lord had attempted to doferVi the Irish Church appointments, but the fact was, thOP. e appointments had been very much calculated to 5 0 : ve offence to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. 'The policy of the Government, and the manner in which it exercised its patronage, had been one of the causes of the present lamentable agitation and excitement in Ire land.—(Laughter from the Ministerial benches.') Mr. Holt "Waring, since the year 1825, had expressed senti ments against the Roman Catholics as a body of a most offensive character. He (Lord Campbell) did not deny that in 1836 he had done his best to discourage the Orange lodges. So far so well ; but that did not give any ground for supposing that he had changed his opinions with regard to the Catholics—that he respected their rights more than he had previously done—or that he was willing to live in peace and kindness with them. There was no evidence that his opinions or his views had been altered ; and he (Lord Campbell) still thought his appointment highly censurable, and that the public was under obligation to his Noble Friend behind him for bringing the matter under the attention of the House. The Duke of WELLLINGTON would just recal to the Hon. and Learned Lord's recollection that which had been stated by a friend of his, but which the Noble and Learned Lord seemed wholly to have forgotten. And that was, that this gentleman was recommended for appointment to the office he now held. The chap ter of Dromore had petitioned for an extension to their body, and the Lords Justices, in compliance with that petition, had given them the advantage of a dean to their body. There had been a petition for this addition to that clerical body, and that clerical body itself had re commended Mr. Holt Waring, and solicited his nomina tion to it. This had all been left out of the case. So necessary was it to run down the Reverend Gentleman for what he had said nineteen years ago, that those lit tle but essential facts were entirely left out of their con sideration by the Noble Lords opposite. The Marquis of WESTNIEATH said, it was the ob ject of the Noble Lords opposite to get up, if they could, a complication of grievances in Ireland, in order to party effect out of doors. In this instance he was far from being astonished at what had taken place, seeing from what quarter the proceedings had come. But he begged to tell the Noble Lords opposite, that these things were most injurious to the peace of fire-sides in Ireland. It was most injurious to the peace and safety of families, that' all these appointments of the Government should be held up in this invidious manner. What could be more unfair than to allude to what had taken place four years before Catholic emancipation, for the purpose of calling down public odium upon an individual ? Nothing but the most un handsome feeling could have suggested to take up what had been said previous to the passing of that measure. When that Bill passed into a law they had entered upon a new era, and from that era Noble Lords ought rather to judge the acts of individuals than before it. The Noble and Learned Lord Campbell had said that the appointment of Mr. Holt Waring had been con sidered by the Roman Catholics as an insult, and that it had been a great cause in the promotion of the cry for repeal. Now he (Lord Westmeath) had read every word that had been published in the newspapers con. cerning the proceedings of the Repeal Association, and he declared he had never seen the Rev. Dean's name ever mentioned in them. But in what position did the Noble Lord (Monteagle) stand, who was then so ready to attack others ? What was his position, he asked, in respect of the public purse ? Who was there that could not remember that some time ago there was an old man, who held a patent office, with a salary of 2,000 L a year, and that, old as he was, the Noble Lord was afraid he would outlive the tottering Administra tion with which the Noble Lord was so long connected ? What happened then ? This old gentleman was pensioned off, in order that that Noble Lord might succeed to that patent office before that miserable Government was driven from power. Those were facts ; and he could not help telling the Noble Lord that, in his opinion, the two words, " Holt Waring," looked as well attached to this underhand deanery, as ever did those of " Spring Rice" to a pen sioned peerage.—(At the conclusion of these words there were cries of " Order, order ;" and the Duke of Rich mond was seen to go round to the bench were the Earl of Westmeath sat, and to enter into conversation with that Noble Lord.) Lord MONTEAGLE said he should not say one word on the taste which had been displayed by the Noble Earl who had last spoken, nor make any personal observation in reply to him. He should merely say that he treated with the most utter unconcern—not to use any harsher or less Parliamentary term—what had been uttered by that Noble Lord against himself. He should not have brought forward his present motion if he had not thought it his duty to do so. Before giving notice of it he had carefully looked over the rules laid down by Sir Robert Peel himself, to regulate his conductwith re gard to Church appointments, and he had compared the principle therein enunciated with the appointment of this Reverend Gentleman. The principle and the conduct were so incongruous that he considered it his duty to notice the matter. And in doing so, his object had not been to say anything adverse to that Reverend Gentle man, but to get a justification from the Government for their conduct. Ile, for one, did not regret having made the motion. _ _ . The Duke of RICHMOND said he did not rise to speak on the subject, but to offer a suggestion on an expression or two which in the heat of debate had un fortunately fallen from a Noble Marquis on his right. From that Noble Marquis expressions had fallen in the hetit of debate which certainly partook of a per sonal character, and which all must regret the use of.—(Hear, hear.) Latterly some occurrences of a similar nature had taken place in that House, which he was greatly afraid would give reason to the public to say that there was not the dignity and decorum which ought ever to characterise their Lordships' proceedings.— (Hear, hear.) He asked how could the country look up to them with respect if they did not try to keep their tempers, and to carry on their proceedings with mutual forbearance and decorum?—(Hear, hear.) He really should recommend the Noble Earl to say, that in the heat of debate he had used remarks of a personal nature, which he regretted to have done.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, that having been called upon by the Noble Duke (Richmond) in the handsome way which he had been, he begged to say he had no desire to show any disorderly feeling in the con duct of the business of that House. He certainly did feel very much as to the mischief caused in Ireland to the peace and safety of families by the constant discus sions on the subjects brought under their notice by Noble Lords opposite. Following, however, the advice so kindly tendered to him by the Noble Duke (Richmond), he had no objection to state his regret, that, in speaking on the matter before the House, he had exceeded the bounds of fair discussion, and that what had fallen from him he re gretted. The motion was then withdrawn by leave, and the House adjourned. ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 22. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Several petitions were presented for leave to obtain private Bills. Mr. ESTCOURT brought up the report of the COM mittee on Standing Orders. Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from the Board of Guardians in Lancaster, complaining of the operation of the bastardy clause of the New Poor-law Bill. Lord POLLINGTON presented a petition from a body of licensed victuallers deprecating the increase of railways, and praying to be relieved from the burdens imposed upon them. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from Coventry deprecating war as inconsistent with t he s p irit of Ch ris.. tianity, and complaining of the great expenditure of the public money in keeping up a large standing army . Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from Roch dale, complaining of inadequate representation and other grievances. The Hon. Member said, he felt it his duty to state that the heading of the petition was not in the usual form. It was addressed "To the representa tives in the Commons House of Parliament of the 950,000 British subjects, who at present possess the right of exercising the electoral franchise." The SPEAKER said, that if the House received the petition, it would imply that they did not represent the country at large. The language not being respectful to the House, if the Hon. Member wished it to be received he had better take the sense of the House on the motion that it be brought up. Mr. S. CRA\VFORD said that after that intimation he would withdraw the petition. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from 2,033 pe rative bleachers in• the west of Scotland, complainin g - of the mode in which their business is now conducted, as in jurious to health, and praying to be included in the Factory Act. The Hon. Gentleman also presented a petition from the same place, signed by 4,648 persons, confirming the statemewts made in the other petition. Ile gave notice that he should to-morrow move that these petitions be printed with the Votes, with a view to a motion to place the petitioners within the operation of the Factories Bill now before the House. Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition against the Gaming Penalties Disabilities Bill. Mr. PAKINGTON said he should postpone to the 7th of March the consideration of his Bill to define and regulate the periods for holding quarter-sessions in cities and boroughs. Dr. BO WRING announced his intention of postponing n: - :--~ THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 23, 1844. for a fortnight his motion to call the attention of the House to the operation of the treaty of commerce with Turkey upon the commercial interests of this country. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he should let his 'motion— " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty. representing to her Majesty the great importance to this country of the trade with the empire of the Brazils, and humbly praying her Majesty to adopt such measures as may appear best calculated to maintain and improve the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and the Brazils"—stand over to this day fortnight. Mr. WALLACE likewise postponed his motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the criminal law ill Scotland, in so far as relates to the prevention of crime, the reclaiming of offenders, and the efficiency of punishments under the present system. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the number of per sons in prison for debt in the gaols of London, Middle sex, and Surrey, and the amount of the debts for which they were confined, classed under _ sums of IL, 51., 101., and 501.—Ordered. both sides. He, however, did not fail to cast an imputation upon a gentleman, against whose character he (Mr. M. O'Connell) never before-had heard anything stated, he meant Mr. M'Grath, who had the fortune, or the misfortune as the case might be, to be a Catholic. The Attorney-General insinuated that this gentle man had been corruptly influenced by Mr. Ma honey, and that he had shown more favour to the traversers than to the officers of the Crown. Now, he believed, the practice was that the list should remain in the office three weeks, during which all parties should be entitled to a personal inspection. The attorney for the traversers applied at the close of the revision for permission to compare his list with the list of the Recorder, in order to see whether his books were correct. There was no great con cession in granting such a request. He was in. Permed that the same permission would be given to the attorney for the traversers had he applied for it. Per mission had been given to inspect four of the parochial lists, and when the fifth was applied for, it was stated that it was gone to the Recorder. Up to that moment he believed no corruption could be charged either against Mr. M'Grath or the attorney for the traversers. The Right Hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-General) said that on the part of the Crown frequent application was made for the book. This was never stated however on the trial, though it ought to have been, if it were intended to have made any statements at all. It ought then to have been stated that the traversers had enjoyed an advantage which was denied to the Crown. As it was, they had only the bare statement of the Attorney. General. From the 3(1 of January the Sheriff had twelve clear days in which to make out his list. Now, if the Attorney- General was ' so anxious to obtain a copy of the jury list, he had it in his power to do so. Immediately on the return of the Recorder an application was made to him on the part of the traversers for copies of the jury list. The Recorder said it was not in his power to grant it, but recommended an application to the Sheriff. This application was made ; but the Sheriff refused to grant it without the consent of the Crown, but that consent was withheld. The only time the list could be of advantage, it was refused. When an application was made to the Recorder to have the names that were omitted placed upon the list, he replied that the power for that purpose was only possessed by the Crown. The letter announcing the circumstances was written by Mr. M'Grath, the clerk of the Crown, both the attor ney for the traversers, and the attorney for the Crown. The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General for Ireland had in vain attempted to fasten a charge, or rather to throw out an imputation, of corruption against Mr. M'Grath. No imputation whatever had ever be fore been heard of against this gentleman ; and he (Mr. M. O'Connell) did not think it would have been so in that House but for the opportunity which was offered to the Attorney-General of throwing some thing out against a Roman Catholic. He (Mr. M. O'Con nell) was not going into the proceedings at the trial—he should not condescend to say anything of the conduct either of the Counsel or the Judges. Those matters had been a good deal discussed already, and they would be a good deal more discussed yet, and a light probably , thrown upon them, which -heretofore had not been done. The Attorney-General had at last obtained what he had so anxiously toiled for—his verdict, but a verdict of a very question able character.—(Hear, hear.) But the Learned Attorney-General himself admitted that the right of ap peal existed ; and most assuredly the exercise of that right would be claimed.—(Hear, hear.) But of what value was the verdict to them now they had got it? Amongst the six millions of people who had been charged with being present at these monster meetings, was there one individual who had been deterred—was there one individual who would be deterred—from seeking the re peal of the union by these legal proceedings ?—(Hear.) The National Association was still in existence—the Re peal rent still flowed in. The amount collected for the last week was 500 L; for the week before that 600/.; for each week in the fortnight previous to that 5001.; and for the week before this period it was over 900 L He had promised the House not to detain it, and he would keep Ids promise. His only object had been to I' expose some of the fallacies in the ingenious, but not very candid, speech of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General. He had only one word to add before he sat down. Let the conse quences be what they might to the traversers, they could not affect the cause or progress of Repeal. They had not succeeded by force of trial, and they would not succeed by force in hushing the demand for a repeal of the union—they had not de layed its advent for one moment, and they would not do so, let them seek by whatever means they liked to do so. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY rose to explain. He said he understood that, during his absence, the Right Hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland had made allusion to certain observations which had fallen from him (Mr. Sergeant. Murphy). He could only say that no one could rejoice more sincerely than he did, that in what he had stated he had been mistaken.—(Hear.) He had taken his information from the public papers, and upon that authority he had fearlessly spoken. He could only,add that he thought the Right Hon. the Attorney-General might congratulate himself upon the mistake that had occurred, for it enabled him to prove himself a most able and accomplished debater in that House. Mr. GREGORY said the Hon. Member for Edin burgh had made use of the expression that Ireland was always combustible, although not always on fire. He could have wished that the Hon. Gentleman had re flected upon that sentiment, for he (Mr. Gregson)'had never heard a speech in that House which was more calculated to effect that combustion of which the Hon. Member had spoken, than the speech of the Hon. Gentle man himself.—(Cheers.) That speech was a mere re suscitation of all the bitter wrongs under which Ireland had ever suffered. These wrongs had now passed away, and therefore no good could result from any attempt to call back the recollection of them.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had commented upon the conduct of the Irish Attorney-General in alluding to Mr. M'Grath. He (Mr. Gregory) did not believe that his Hon. and Learned Friend meant to attach any stigma to the name of Mr. M'Grath. His Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Shaw) had also repudiated any such inten tion. What those Hon. and Learned Gentlemen had said was, that a strong impression existed in Dublin that blame was not to be attached to the law officers of the Crown, but to those persons who had obtained access to the office of Mr. M'Grath. Allusion had been made in the course of this debate to the state of the elective franchise in Ireland. It had been stated that the re restriction of the franchise in Ireland was owing to an unwillingness on the part of the landlords to grant leases. This was not the case. The reason was an un willingness on the part of the Irish peasants to register themselves, on account of the power that might be brought against them in the exercise of that franchise by the Irish priesthood. The Noble Lord, the Mem ber for London, in alluding to the state of the Irish franchise, had stated, on the authority of Mr. O'Connell, that the registered electors of Yorkshire were equld in number to the registered electors of all the counties in Ireland. Now he had not supposed that in the eyes of the Noble Lord population was the only basis of repre sentation. If it were the only basis, why did they not propose to alter the constituencies of England.—(Hear, hear.) Why should Tamworth with its 300 electors have the same weight and influence in that House as Birmingham, with its 5,000, or Manchester with its 6,ooo.—(llear, hear.) Why did he not adopt the Chartist proposition, and divide England at once into 20,000 districts ?—(Hear, hear.) He would remind the House of the words of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, who said that if they increased the franchise in Ireland they would only be putting weapons in the hands of those who were the friends of Ireland. In his (Mr. Gregory's) opinion by increasing the constituences of Ireland they would be putting weapons not into the hands of those who were the friends of Ireland, but of those who had established and were continuing agitation in that country.—(Hear, hear.) With respect. to. the Established Church, another monster grievance— (Hear, hear, from the Opposition) he was happy to say that had received two assurances in that House which convinced him that that Establish ment was not destined to be overthrown. He referred to the assurances of the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, and of the Right Hon. Baronet, declaring that it was their intention to abide by that institution. —(Cheers. He believed that were this question left to the exclusive legislation of Hon. Members opposite they would find considerable difficulty in settling it. He could not but refer to the statement, that the Catholic religion had been stigmatised as false and idolatrous. He begged to say, in reference to that subject, that having been entrusted with a petition, containing lan guage of that description, and having forwarded it to the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for presentation, he received. a few days afterwards, a letter from the Right Hon. Baronet, stating that he did not consider it his duty to pre sent her Majesty with an address which breathed sentiments so disrespectful to 'a large portion of her subjects.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) It had been stated that the present Government in Ire land was a government by the sword. If it were so, let the blame rest with those to whom this state of things was attributed. The idea of repeal was not a mere ab stract love of having a Parliament on College-green. It was no vague speculation of a band of enthusiasts ; but it was the focus in which centered all the wrongs and grievances of Ireland. It was the murmur of the Catholic priests against the Established Church, which they were determined to overthrow. It was the com plaint of the poor man, who was driven to that extremity that any change was hailed as an advantage to him. They might rest assured that the agitation would con tinue, and the House might depend on it that the priests and agitators of that country would continue to demand from them what they could not conscientiously grant, and what would be indignantly refused by the Protest ants and Dissenters of England. Mr. BELLEW said he considered that in the late State trials the Roman Catholics of Ireland had been most unfairly treated, and also that the traversers had been unfairly dealt with. He considered that the Irish franchise was most unsatisfactory. It should be founded, he thought, upon some test of rating or valuation, which would place it quite out of the power of either of the two great parties into which the country was divided. He certainly could not speak very flatteringly of the course pursued by the Noble Lord who had brought in the Irish Registration Bill, or say that it was likely to i n crease the respect in which the character of a states man should be held. There was one thing he felt bound to acknowledge, that he considered the administration of justice at present, was superior to that of the period during which the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. in 1831. The appointment of stipen diary mag istrates had conferred incalculable benefits upon Ireland, and he eared not wh e th e r they wer e ap pointed was in power d by a Whig or a Tory Administration, for they were far better than the unpaid magistrates, no matter what might be their politics, inasmuch as they were obliged to render an account of their conduct to a supe rior tiibung, He ccoginib as a catholic gentleman, would,sarthat he was not under many obligations for the eOurte,y shown by the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, when he was alluding to the oath presented to be taken by Roman Catholics. The Government might depend that the agitation for the repeal of the union would never cease until some alteration was made with respect to the Established Church in Ireland. They ought to endeavour to make such an arrangement as would give satisfaction to the three great denominations in Ireland. Until this was accomplished agitation in Ireland would continue. Every one seemed to agree that some alteration in the Pro testant Establishment in Ireland was necessary, and yet no attempt was made to effect an alteration. He was g lad that the Landlord and Tenant Commission had been appointed, because he felt' that it would turn public attention to the subject. He believed that the Commis sion had been appointed by the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury in good faith, with the inten tion of improving the relations between landlord and tenant. The present system. was fraught with the most frightful evils. Most of those evils were attributed to the landlords; 'but this wasnot just, for he knew that there were many landlords wh o wou ld. i mprove t h e i r estates if they possessed the means. At the same time he knew that there were many landlords who did possess the moans, but who did not possess the will. He thought the relation of landlord and tenant and the Church question were the two most important questions with re spect to Ireland that the Government could turn their attention to. __ _ ---Mi.LIDDELL rose to express his regret at what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Northampton shire (Mr. S. O'Brien) the other night, with respect to the conduct of the Noble Marquis who was the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He was sorry to recal to the Hon. Gentleman's recollection the words which he had used. The Hon. Gentleman, in the course of his ob servations, had said that the Noble Marquis during his administration in Ireland had made theatrical and osten tatious displays. He (Mr. Liddell) was prepared to ad mit that in the progress of the Noble Marquis through the country, at the time the pris oners were lib erate d without the intervention of judge or jury, he did show some indiscretion. He (Mr. Liddell), however, knew that, the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had never been filled with more becoming dignity, or with more satisfaction to the Irish people, than it was by the Noble Marquis.—(Cheers.) He might say that the duties of the office had been performed with dignity without ostentation, or with affability without affectation. The private charities of the Noble Marquis and his Lady were only limited by the opportunities afforded for their exhibition. Many were the persons in the far west of Ireland who had felt the beneficial effects of the Noble Marquis's kindness.—(Cheers.) Thousands of those whom the Noble Marquis had found in slavery, but left in freedom, were ready to bless the name of the Marquis of Normanby.—(Cheers.) With respect to his appointments, they had given general satisfaction. Those appointments were always most carefully con sidered by the Noble Marquis, and were always disposed of with the greatest propriety. He (Mr. Liddell) felt bound to say thus much in vindication of the Noble Mar quis, for he was unwilling that his defence should en tirely rest with gentlemen on the other side of the House. " Absentem qui rodit amicum ; Qui non defendit, alio culpante ; solutes Qui captat risus hominum, famamque dicacis Fingere qui non visa potest ; commissa tacere Qui nequit; hie niger est; hunc tu, Romane, caveto." With respect to the question before the House, he would merely say, that any accusation that had been brought by Hon., Gentlemen on the other side of the House had been fully met, and he was happy to say that the Go vernment had received as full a vindication as they could desire •, and he had to congratulate them on their triumph in argument, as be had no doubt he should also have to congratulate them on the result of the division. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN could assure the Hon. Gentleman that, in the remarks he had made, he had meant nothing discourteous to the late Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland. He could assure the Hon. Gentle man, that he had never intended for a moment to cast the slightest reflection upon the private eharacter of that Noble Lord. What he had said was, and he still ad hered to the opinion, that, in letting out the prisoners in Ireland, the Noble Marquis had proceeded in a thea trical manner, as though he wished to make an effect. Mr. HUME thought that the administration of the Noble Marquis in Ireland had given perfect satisfac tion to all parties, and he was sure that in saying that he should be borne out by the whole people of Ireland. He wished he could say the same thing of those by whom he had been succeeded. With respect to the de fence set up by the Irish Attorney-General last night, he must say that he had utterly failed in convincing him (Mr. Hume) that the course which he had adopted was free from blame. Mr. O'Connell had a right to demand that the jury panel should be quashed. It was no excuse to say that if it had been so quashed, all other causes to be tried during the year would have been affected. Was Mr. O'Connell to be punished because an error had been committed which would affect other trials? He (Mr. Hume) considered that the Hon. and Learned Gentle man had utterly failed in his explanation. He did not wish to revive the recollection of past grievances—what he more particularly wished to allude to were the present. It might be said that he was not an Irishman. He looked upon the people of' that country as his fellow-subjects. Ireland was a part of the British empire, and a most im portant part. He had always opposed separa tion, because he considered that if the union was fairly carried out, Ireland must be benefited by it. The poor country was invariably the better by being connected with the rich one. What advantages Scot land had gained by the union I Incalculable advantages ; and if Ireland had been treated on the same principle as Scotland she would be now happy and flourishing.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then quoted from the speech of King George the Third at the opening of Parliament, in the year 1800, in which his Majesty most cordially congratulated the House on the ad vancement of that measure, and said that nothing could be so well calculated to increase the prosperity of the empire, and his Majesty's speech led the Irish people to expect that they would from the time of the union be participators in all the institutions, rights, privileges, and advantages of -this country.--(Hear, hear.) Mr. Pitt said that the Irish people should partake in every solid benefit and every eminent advantage that could result from so important a union. --(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Dubliu said, that Hon. Members on that side of the House were always talking about the grievances of Ireland, and that even if the Protestant Church Establishment were destroyed in that country there would be still complaints of grievances. He (Mr. Hume) considered that the Irish people not only had a right to complain, but that they ought to complain until every grievance was redressed. The majority of the people of Scotland had the Church of their religion. The people of England had the Church of theirs, but the Irish people were obliged to support the Church of the minority. It was urged that the Protestant Church had. been guarranteed by the union, but why should a Church be su pported, however guaranteed, which did not bring peace among mankind ? It was im possible that the Irish people could be satisfied with the Church as it stood. It was astonishing when Hon. Gentlemen opposite found the documents from which they quoted —they always seemed to suspect docu ments read - upon that side of the House, but he would now quote from the census of 1834. According to that census, the population of Ire land was as follows:—Roman Catholics, 6,427,000 ; Protestant Episcop aliaas, 752 , 00 0 ; Presbyterians, 642,000 ; Protesta nt Dissent ers of all other classes, 121,000. The Established Church in Ireland derived from the public money, 806,000/. ; the Presbyterians, 35,0001. ; whilst the Roman Catholic Church derived only 8,9281., the miserable grant to Maynooth, which was many years opp osed. —(Hear, hear.) It was said this was a party question ; he (Mr. Hume) had never treated it so. lie had been always of the party that ad vocated those rights for Ireland to which she was en titled, but had opposed the Whigs in 1834, when they brought forward measures of coercion. Let the Go vernment treat Ireland properly —let them legislate for her in the same manner and on the same principles as for Scotland, and there would be no agitation. The fact was, the Tories who refused Ireland its rights, were the ag it a t o rs, and, the Premier, as the head of that party, was the prime agitator—(A laugh)—but let them be once more respected, do justice to Ireland, and the occupation of Othello was gone for ever. The first measure which he thought ought to be adopted by the Government would be the withdrawal of a Lord- Lieutenant from Ireland, and have the business of the country transacted in the same manner as the Scotch affairs were, in London. In 1823 and 1830 he had brought a motion to that effect before the House, when a long discussion ensued and 115 Members voted in favour of the measure. Let not Ireland be governed in the same way as Canada, but let her enjoy the same constitution and right, and be able to avail herself of the same talent in the administratien of her affairs as England had. For his part he would much sooner trust to a Secretary of State in England than to an y Lor d - Lieutenant, for it was the nature of man to abuse that which he was delegated to exercise at a distance from the fountain head. Ireland had had at the union its own boards of customs and other revenue offices, but they were all swept away now, and w hat was the use of a Lord-Lieutenant ? He knew tha t man y of the peers would bitterly oppose this.—(A laugh.) In 1834, when Mr. O'Connell brought forward a motion for a Select Committee to inquire into repeal of the union, and its probable effects if carried, he was met by Mr. Spriog Rice (now Lord Montettgle) with an amendment expressive of the intention of the House to main tain ' the union, but at the same time to redress the grievances of Ireland. He (Mr. Hume) would ask had those grievances been redressed ? On the 2d of February a petition was presented from a meeting in Dublin, demanding an equality of civil and 'I-elisions rights, but that petition had been unheeded. If he (Mr. Hume) had his will, he should apply the Church property to the education of the people, and allow every paid his own doe rota. to r e p a Y 6 li d i s w o a w s rt . g c a l e r r r s y o m n e an s b as ; he e roops in the same manner as Algeria was by the French army; and he Was sorry to see so great a similarity between the two countries. What they should do with the present in cumbents would be to put them upon the Consolidated Fund . during their lives, an d at once place the Church property in the hands o f Government, to be applied to the education of the people. This should be done at once. The -next step should be to reduce the military forces, send the navy into dock, and apply the amount of a million and a half saved in these departments to the diffusion of education. Thus would they do away with the evil effects of a military occupation of Ireland. Everything which had been done in that country by the present Government had been attended with mischief. (At this moment Sir Robert Peel entered the House, and the Hon. Member for Montrose said, pointing to the Right Hon. Baronet) and all those mischiefs could be rightly. attributed to the Right Hon. Baronet who had just came in, and who was responsible for the acts of the Government, for if he were not responsible who was ? (Hear.) He (Mr. Hume) had hoped better things from • the Right Km Baronet lONA 119 Brat wok ofic©, but all those hopes had been disappointed, and there was no likelihood of anything better being realised while that Right Hon. Gentleman was surrounded by the same party. An Hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the people of Ireland were glad of the presence of the soldiery, be cause each soldier spent ss. a day there—that put him in mind of an old song, the burden of which was "He spends half-a-crown out of sixpence a day."—(Laughter.) But, allowing the Hon. Gentleman's statement to be true, did not that money, which, from the number of troops in Ireland, amounted to upwards of a million and a half sterling, come out of the pockets of the people of England ? There had been no reduction of the military or naval force in Ireland.—(Hear, hear, from Sir R. PeeL) Some said this was only an Irish question, but that he denied, for enormous-'expense was entailed upon the people of. England by the system of misrule pursued towards Ireland. The Right Hon. Baronet said he did not hold Ireland by military occupation, but by the administration of the laws - in . the trial by jury. Was the proper way .to support trial by jury to pour 20,000 troops into the country ? When Ireland was under the Government of Lord Normanby, although he was thwarted in his good intentions, he did much good, and was deeply and gratefully appreciated by the Irish people. It was on that ground he deplored the situa tion the Government placed itself in. If they gave Ire land fair constitutional privileges they might withdraw their troops to-morrow. He wished that the Noble Lord had made his motion a direct vote of censure on the Government. At all events he looked on it in that light, and as such he should vote for it. He did not intend to move an amendment that should place the motion in that respect out of all doubt.—(Sir Robert Peel—lt is not too late.—(Laughter.) No, he should not move such an amendment as at that late hour he did not wish to play Marplot.—(Laughter.) But he wishe3 this side of the House were more unani mous with regard to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He wished the Noble mover of the resolution had told them what he was prepared to do. Would he settle the question of the Church ? Would he extend the suffrage ? But, on that point, they were not to have "finality," even on the other side.—(Hear, hear.) Would he give the people of Ireland a fair share of every civil privilege ? If he was not prepared to do all this, a change of men would be of no use. It was a change of policy they wanted, not a change of men. He wanted to see the union really effected, for till this moment it had only been a union of party not of the people. He believed the Right Hon. Baronet was not present during the remarks which he made on his Government, and he would therefore repeat them. He had said that it was unjust to the people of England, unjust to the people of Ireland, and unwise with regard to the whole nation. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would bear those remarks in mind, and reflect en them, when he laid his head upon the pillow.—(Laughter.) Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said it was desirable that the Landlord and Tenant Commission should make its Report as soon as possible. But the House should bear in mind the great labour attending such an inquiry, when they heard that one half of the farms in Ireland were under five acres in extent ; that five out of six farms were under 15 acres, that half of the families among the rural population were living in the lowest state of destitution in cabins, not having more than one room ; that 68 per cent. of the far mers were without capital,. knowledge, or land. Such were the statements of the census of 1841. Now, he believed the great advantage resulting from the Commission, would be the effect which the evidence taken before it would have on public opinion. It was equally obvious that, to have that effect, evidence must be extensively taken, and the Report deliberately con sidered. He could assure the House, that the Commis sioners were determined to probe matters to the bottom, and to make known to her Majesty the state of things in Ireland. The Hon. Member for Belfast, and some other Hon. Members, had intimated that the Commission was too much of a landlord Commission, but he could assure the House that the Commissioners were most anxious to receive evidence from the class 1 of tenants ; and they had also taken steps to procure local evidence taken on the spot. The lion. Member for Roscommon had said that a good deal of excitement had been caused by this Commission, and that it would disappoint public expectation. But that excitement did not originate with the Commissioners. They had adopted every means of putting before the public the real objects of inquiry, and had taken every measure to prevent the supposition that they were em powered to settle disputes between parties. He then proceeded to notice the conduct of the Government, with respect to the repeal agitation. With regard to the de lay in putting down the excitement, he had heard the explanation of the Government with very great satis faction. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State, had given a conclusive explanation of that delay, and he thought that the conduct of the Government with respect to that agitation was marked with great forbear ante, resolution, wisdom, and firmness. He believed that all the Protestants in Ireland, and those of the Ro man Catholics most worthy of consideration, were forced Repealers, or utterly opposed to it. The excitement of last year was a forced excitement, and not the result of a deep discontent. Even in case of war, he should be under no apprehension for the loyalty of his countrymen, who would be still able to preserve Ireland for 'the Queen, and would be able to resist all the efforts of foreign or domestic foes. He rejoiced that the Government had resorted to the ordinary powers of the law, and had not asked for any unconstitutional powers. He hoped they would still continue that policy, and if they did so, and with it adopted measures of improvement, the agitation would soon subside, and Ireland would cease to be the battle field of parties in that House. With respect to the Church of Ireland, the speech of the Noble Lord the Se cretary for the Colonies would be highly satisfactory to the Protestants of Ireland. He contended it was the duty of every Christian State to maintain a religious estab lishment. He should not inquire on what grounds the Protestant religion had been selected as the religion of this State. It was sufficient for him that it was so ; and it was their duty to bring within the reach of the peo ple the great truths which that religion contained. He did not believe that the Catholics of Ire land felt any practical grievances in that the religion of the State was recognised and supported as such. If that principle was recognised, the maintenance of a religion could not be based on the proportion of the numbers professing. it. But this principle must be ap plied within reasonable limits. He was prepared to show that the Church in Ireland was not a rich Church. The average income of the benefited clergy in Ireland was not above 2161. The number of benefices in Ireland was 1,400, and if the Protestant . population was divided among them, it would give an average congregation of 600 each ; and was the amount he had stated too much for an educated and active clergy ? Regarding England as a great empire, greater than any that flit across the page of history, he thought she had been raised to power for some higher purpose than the promotion of transient interest. He believed she was the depository of the highest and best principles ; she had maintained, and would continue to maintain them •, if she did not, she, like other empires, would-sink back to her original insignificance. Mr. CALEB POWELL said, with respect to the,con duct of the State prosecutions, they had excited distrust throughout all Ireland. The proceedings had placed the Protestants in the most invidious position. They had been made the means of convicting the most popu lar man that had ever lived in Ireland, or, perhaps, in any other country. So far from the prosecution putting down the agitation, it would perpetuate it. He should support the m ,tion. Sir H. DOUGLAS, after some observations which were inaudible, said he believed that Ireland had, in many respects as regarded trade, manufactures, and taxation, been treated with great liberality and gene • rosity. The income-tax afforded an instance of this de scription. It was inconsistent to delay any longer the putting down of agitation for the repeal of the union by the strong arm of the law. lie had before stated that he respected and loved Ireland; notwithstanding that, he must declare that the great master curse of Ireland was agitation. He thought the Government did not move soon enough; but he gave them full credit for act ing vigorously and effectually at what they considered the proper time.—(Hear, hear.) He had heard attri buted to them in that House fiendish intentions, as evinced in their delaying the proclamation. He believed that their conduct was merciful, because their preparations were irresistible.—(Hear, hear.) The great, pressing, evils :of Ireland were, in his judgment, physical and social ; and impartial measures would remove them. Men must be reclaimed from that physical and social condition in which the Irish were, before they would be capable of exercising political pri vileges. He agreed with the Noble Lord the Member for Lincoln, that they should direct their chief attention to the raising the condition of the Irish population by commerce, the arts, mechanics, the learned professions, and other means of social advancement. The struggle which was now going forward was intended to restore to power a party who had never done any good for Ireland, and who were incapable of doing any. He was prepared to concede everything which could b e granted to the Roman Catholics consistent with safety to the Established Church and the Constitution. Not withstanding all the clamour that was raised for a repeal of the union, it was nevertheless certain that the Irish minority in the Imperial Parliament had more power to work out their views than men of the same stamp would have in an Irish Parliament. lie repeated now what be said last year, that agitation should be put down before any remedy was proposed for the grievances of Ireland, and he now contended that the best course for a Con servative Government to adopt was on the cessation of the agitation to apply itself affectionately and in earnest to remove all those subjects of complaint which formed the real grievances of Ireland. Ho scouted the idea that the people of Ireland would ever aid a foreign foe. Whatever the differences might be that existed at home, the landing of a foreign foe would at once put an end to them : and, in proof of this, he need only remind the House of the opposition the Irish offered to the French on their attempting to land in that country previous to the rebellion of 1798. There was only one speech more to which he wished to refer before he sat down. It was not the speech of the Noble Lord (J ohn Russell), who introduced the motion, injudicious as it was, nor yet the still more injudicious one of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland (Howick), but that de livered by the Hon. Member for Roscommon (The Otonor Don). He called upon the inhabitants of the three kingdoms to look so upon each other as to make but one empire. Anything more beautiful, anything more proper, could not be suggested ; and if that speech should assist in uniting the people in that brotherly charity which ought to be the distinguishing feature of this great empire, then, indeed, should he consider that the Noble Lord's motion had done a degree of good he could not otherwise hope from it. Mr. SHEIL then rose, and addressed the House u follows :—Sir, I did not rise last night at the conclusion of the speech of the"hight Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland, for two reasons , -.-the f i rst i s th a t the speech of the Right HO. itUti Pg 4.494 Gentleman did not terminate till nearly midnight, and I despaired of rivetting the attention of the House at so late an hour ; the next, that I was anxious he should afford me 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 perk 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.—(Hear.) I say that no cognisance was taken by the Crown, and that as 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 to 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 should be composed of six of each reli g i ous p ersuas i on . In page 690 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 ocersion, I male 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 lion. 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 li 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 eve , y chance of proving his innocence ?—(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 lion. 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.) He 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 ho (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 all,wed 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 disc u ssi on .— (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 f or 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 t h e y h a d h ear d w i t h 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 beholdnone 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 means 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„ it' 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 who was 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- j cause the Noble Lord the Secretary ter Ireland adverted in this House, at the commencement of the debate, when I was unable to attend, being confined in Ireland by in disposition—the Noble Lord adverted to an observation made by me in the Court of Queen's Bench. lle said— but he was mistaken in what he did say—he said that I represented it as an insult to the Catholics of Ireland, that M r. Blake and Chief Baron Brady were not summoned to the Privy Council. What I said was that the uniform usage in Ireland, until this occasion, was to summon every member of the Privy Council; but upon this occasion that rule was for the first time departed from, and that Mr. Blake, a Roman Catholic, was excluded on that oc casion, although he shad been summoned before to the Privy Council. Mr. Blake was appointed to the digni fied office of Chief Remembrances of Ireland under a Tory Government—appointed by Lord Wellesley, the great Conservative statesman—and Mr. Blake never took part in the violent proceedings by which Ireland was agitated. After he was at a meeting at Charlemont-house—after, and not before, you ex cluded him from the Privy Council.—(Cheers.) The fact of his being in the habit of attending the Privy Council shows that he was not a violent politiciallet no man ever attended the Privy Council in Dublin 11 was inveterately hostile to the existing Governmente, stated that it was to be regretted — l sa id no more ta7 0t" this—l said that it was to be regretted that on that .oi casion you had departed from the rule--whiell Y ou have admitted you did—and that on that occasion Z'to excluded Roman Catholics who were not suppo s t. be .exceedingly hostile to you. And I further atlde u t Is a and I hope I made the observation without any, Pertld n , disrespect, for I did not intend it — that the Ri g ht Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin, by w h o m the jury Po: was to be revised, and it was an untoward circurnstatnt, had been summoned to the Privy Coun cil, from Ivni`i Roman Catholics were excluded.—(Cheers.) I dl e think I have misrepresented the statemen t of the 14° Lord. Ido not think that I have mistated the facts ae k• May I venture to say this—l think that if 31r. 131% had been upon the Privy Council, he wou ld have gested to you, on the Friday when you met, th e lAA priety of immediately drawing up the proclama tion, s ll2l r y posting it up, at once, thereby avoiding that fearft!lcon Mr' , zard which, through the instrumentality of °it is nell, you have just cause to rejoice did not resn. pd, misfortune. The observation of my Right Hon. Fr ! ' s t the Member for Edinburgh, I think, is entitled to re.. weight. The Clontarf meeting was announced for Tor weeks. You waited until the Friday before the St u ' c o upon which the meeting would be held, and then) h ioa summoned the Privy Council. You came to de r ' bee e and you drew a proclamation which might have her contained in two lines. I have the proclams tien and I am sure that it did not require any p ee iliac ditatiun, for it does not exhibit any great d el the (Laughter.) This proclamation was got up an' 4 ; sst! peculiar care of the Noble Lord. I certainly shouldrans that it is a matter of some surprise, that y ou lore' meet on the Friday—when you determined on the y ol i clamation, and not put it up immediately. waited until Saturday afternoon, when he tire could not have been conveyed to t'cloe' merous multitude who were to assemble s t tarf multitudes, however, which were Pr e ';', e of from coming to a scene which might have been ° 4 "{tioa contest and bloodshed, but for the pac ifi c interr - jot , of Mr. O'Connell, who proved to you on that oceasio what he had said over and over again, that he sold to obey the law, and that if they sent a siugle constable the meetings that would induce him to obey t hat not refrain from expressing my wonder that att e 'aject proclamation had been i-sued—that after von' o bject had been obtained, that of the prevention of Ate r est meetings—l cannot but wonder that you aid ",, ° ,l 10 1 there. I do not see what further purpose Y, -- As te' to attain, for the meetings of the Repeal if you ciation were held in comparative obscurity. ` t op succeeded in your object in suppressing these Ine e lic ula why did you institute these prosecutions? ' t for rather ask you, why did ou not prosecute -4° 55a conspiracy, but for holding unlawful assemblae'estfor 6 tor seditious language—for seditious publications ' period of nine months before?—(Cheers.) Ihe an Pr° eusi "' l mation stated that at several meetings se" of a seditious and inflammatory nature ha cl i we a - di e ' dressed to persons there assembled, calculated °rods tended to excite discontent and disaffection in t he t etall' of her Majesty's subjects, and to bring into e°°f the and hatred the Government and institutions ° e pre; country, &c. Now, does not the question at e rn i ' c io loYe", sent itself, that if that seditious language Wit,' A e ;' l l for so long a period as nine monthe, why u ,'",,, d r ° see,_" .- stop it before?—(Cheers.) Why did yo u noi, r - ° ov such articles as this which I hold in my hand , r ;Li ti et so far back as the Ist of April, 1843? YOU raz tn3e,ei proceeded by criminal information or by '" e of You might have proceeded for the publican ,s poem in the Nation newspaper, which her gaies,;)tc be e torney-General, in addressing the jury, declare,' oleo poem of a seditious character. The poem we Ge"' the " Memory of the Dead," and the R'gbt 00"'iu tike 'timer, the Attorney-General, real it to thee r l e'd most emphatic and solemn manner. I - 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, Some sleep 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, ad 1 / 2 Their spirit 's still at home. s 1 11 ! '0 The Attorney-General added, this poem ° t o, order to excite the minds of the people, an -- 10 e • a specimen of an entire volume of sedition! dioifeo which was calculated to excite discontent o ° o r ...it W ir tion. If this be a true description of the P c . * „ of cod published on the Ist of April, and a ser le- e d We e 0 k:iositions of the same class had been publish • • racy-Is gi;e? for several months (Hear, hear) had the tendency imputed to it by the Atto ie re l l3 l ,l ral, is it not a very natural question to ask, w h Y h ed proceedings taken against the man who publiingoeo poem, and the more especially if i t h a d t he el. O,P S*I O ~ attributed to it by the Attorn e y-G enera l ? for, to it is this—you had predetermin e d to prose c ' e etiln conspiracy—you had connived at these g, and at the publication of poems of t e a t ".9 for you suffered these p o ems to Ti e d tb ° ,; , after day in the newspapers. If you gl u b e ill 0f,P 0 3 meetings to be held, until, according to your e„...(i'°ol ticulars, ninety-one of them had taken Plac„iekero, cries of " Hear, hear")—you allowed those 1 1 ' . „. the to proceed in their career—to run a race aln°Zthet.o.o selver—until the editors competed with one g o ' , did exciting the popular passions. And what, th, e ins o P° 9 o t. do ? You did not prosecute the author of t" e 0 5 , r st —you did not prosecute the man whose 1 1551 ; 1 0 , t he tached to some of those compositions. O h , d O a to article, the " Duty of a S o ldi er ," was publi s -Ade s fte Nation newspap er ; th e name o f th e writer r ba , e 4) it—the writer wa s a p r i es t i n Waterford be oeP ye John Power—(liear, hear, from the 3 1i n isteri'' co eat t s t —knit you never p rosecu t e d hi m . To • thi s : 3l , f ese n h ha, has escaped with p er f ec t i mpun ity—he e 'whi c pro the trial—he saw the men tried for theoffe nc i , ~ter e himself had committed, and he returned t 0 f4' c la l perfectly safe and unmolested.—(Loud ce ies t l; A r.- ,; c lt ee hear" from the Opposition.) But you ga ve ,' rio t 'f fl a a° evidence against Dani e l O'C onne ll, who 113" f it, 9/I t l}Bs it—(Hear, hear)—who had no cognizance gf le he• communication whatever with the writer. i r ci ° "„ocl article in evidence aga'nst him— (Rencwe„ o iti ° ,bree ment cries of " Hear, hear," from the Op p of ',a you joined in the offence the editorsst 0'C ° 194 1 ., newspapers —you gave in evidence aga in in °' every article published in those newsp3P•ad ocl Was this a legitimate proceeding ? (V h o 1 1°13 ' t re: " Hear, hear.") Were the observations i o thA ig ir Learnt-d Member for Worcester justifiable r oee e°l gard ? Has there been a precedent for such P a of I t o 01 —(Hear, hear.) Has there been an instT e edit ° ,i f en indicted tor conspiracy, and joined with ; p aper s :o% l newspapers, and every article in those new g e ar, h ui d in evidence against him?—(Loud cries of :p i g Sh ° 0 1 0 9 You might tell me that mode of precce the adopted if there is no other way of I° ocu ted editors ; but could not they have been P r i li c atiol t ! to te, ordinary manner? Could not these rl" 1,, 0 " u p been stopped ? Could not these char m e c iossc r i to of which sedition was disseminated, have he the bo• Therefore we charge you with having --in , be , svit':, eo e) the Attorney-Ge nera l— w ith h a ving sto ou in;; laid in wait t o entra p these Inell• oa nive'yott f If you did not encourage, at least )'°° whe ll li e strangely at these proceedings ; a nd the o " o the , purpose was accomplished, you fell u P as ,..—(C r i l e e el. ll whom you had inclosed within your to ne at . 0 , halo . tr " Hear, hear.") I now (said the ig to per in a solemn and marked tone of v oice) 07; 1n d itn e ! ol e. action which the Attorney-General for Ire, l o t he Po mit me to say has been—l don't like to Luse t's " wilful misrepresentation," but I wish to h 0 0 0 House the knowledge of a transaction I"..fkcole-- regarded as a most singular—most re Genera` conspicuous omission . by the Attornyem`-'O, lail og hee; House heard that Right Hon. Gen t , Boud ' h od t speak of the conduct pursued against 31!. t . er; a tt" tie visi t He is a reporter—No, a shorthand-wri _ ag ea Mr. Gurney's office, and I believe him to Dv i ; e lan' tifi g, gent t° nfee s' of undoubted ability. He was s e i i itt ast va s s the purpose of reporting the Mullag i , oo .hes _.,„ The Attorney-General said that bit , t 0, 7 0,4 0 .. lected as an object ofpersecution, and tnu.';, on d ti fti v v ou' placarded with denunciations of this 3.1 r. more in ~ 0 0 ): so that even those Roman Catholics who e l r oWe e ta of the appropriation clause could not ..Gen eru_ o o denounced than he was. The .Attornfi... ce c ont 4 o tbo t that this was the conduct pursued by andpiflta his associates with respect to Mr. II ' Gos'e c ' eo eos . was one of . the motives of the , no b it he ! e l , for pressing O'Connell with 8 ° . d, dust whif t , The Attorney-General further Said, _ per _ ni v an the rend gulated his proceedings by the . Mr. Hughes had been persecut, refer en 'jo, 01) ` . 11 11 (i i id n ot B ° l hin) e -' e, i able and immoral course pursued gentleman. The Attorney-General.... Hughes ;0 his am surprised that he did not, that- Dir rt ;c st „kei. acknowledged that he made tw° . 11 , 7 41 5 0 f t,, affidavit—in the sworn information p oi tb a warrant was founded and issued ug_ . t . ' . l . l . 3 o s o `yi r wa . ? b the proprietor of the Pilot n ewspiiperi 0 11 ' lO l, n „ ri d c There utmost consequence to Taste • bear.") VI O'Connell.—(Loud cries of "Hear.,. ___ secti tor!: n e no person but Barrett and the Irish . P r o v i • ri e ';', paper the article entitled the " i n fortl ire le, ll published. Mr. Bond Hughes swor .• a t _ ee ti which he stated that he saw Barrett . t . "__'' ot o Vu e ito te a, h„r.") Pot step" ings in Dublin. He never didn:aere,,,h7 wits n_c in Dublin.—(Loud cries of' what was untrue, but which I bener w cie ac tionally false--(Hear, hear) —but search his 0 0 135 Me nothing of him, as we could not see , rro er_ t h e n ot e „ had no explanation from himself until ich .tessoi the as we had heard no explanation froriithe t he knew was, that he had sworn to al A bea.• ep tio , - a p. fact.--(Renewed cries of " Ilear, o. k „ er , co e an incident took place which has n 1 -'7 l be L ae" on 0 1 7 the Attorney-General, but which rai rn a ti oell u P be I think, T ,T bb this House, and which will, bout t° tiA te eh . ih t o r f a( a u l c l i p ed ar I n es t n h o e srtdaitneamr)e•nsterii ::bsositeff, • ca ll d te* ng the documents here with whic h I 13col (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) .. h ihe. _ j oe : 0 -in his first examination, stated certalu .. : if . I de; to h the Attorney-General to interrunt 1 1 w is b• single particular from the exact SW 00 4 anticipated the disclosure of to TAHITI-FRANCE. Sir GEORGE GREY said he had a question to put to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), which was of considerable importance. It had been reported for a day or two past that the French Admiral, off the island of Tahiti, had taken possession of it in the name of France. He had already alluded to the question ; and since he had done so, the subject had assumed a very painful aspect, and had no doubt attracted the notice of her Majesty's Government. Full and apparently most authentic accounts had now appeared in the public papers, stating that the French protectoratefiad termi nated, that the island had been taken possession of by the French stationed off there, and that the native . Queen had been forcibly deposed. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet, if the Government had received any information on this subject, and if so, whether he could, consistently with his sense of duty, put the House in possession of that information ?- I (Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL felt obliged for the private intimation grven to him by the Right Hon. Baronet, of his inten tion to put this question. When the question was put to him the other night, accounts appeared the next day, stating the facts now adduced by the Right Hon. Baro net. Since that period, a vessel bad arrived—probably tke same vessel which brought the early in formation alluded to—bringing full dispatches from the British authorities in the island of Ta hiti to the Government at home. He believed the accounts were received. He believed that the French Admiral in those seas had taken possession of the island of Tahiti, and that the native Queen had been deposed.—(Hear, hear.) All he could at present say upon the subject was, that he greatly lamented what had taken place.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from every part of the House.) He had no reason at pre sent to believe that what had taken place was with the previous sanction or under instructions sent out by the French Government.—(Hear.) But the Government had put itself into communication with France upon the subject, and, under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it better to say no more at that moment, and he doubted not the House would approve this course. He would take the first opportunity, when he could speak with propriety, to give to the House every information upon the subject which he might be able to do.—(Hear, hear.) GAMING AND SPORTS COMMITTEE: At the request of Mr. More O'Ferrall, and with the sanction of Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Martin Blake was placed upon this Committee in the room of Mr. Hume, who voluntarily seceded from it, in order that an Irish Member might be attached to it. MASTER AND SERVANT. Mr. MILES brought up a Bill for the amendment of the laws relative to master and servants, which was read a first time. Lord CLEMENTS and Mr. POWELL severally postponed motions till another day, in order to give precedence to the adjourned debate on Ireland. On the motion that the Order of the Day for re suming the adjourned debate be read, Sir R. PEEL said it was advisable that some arrange. ment should be made respecting the termination of the debate. They were now approaching the close of a fortnight since its commencement, and it was impossible to foresee from the aspect it at present presented when it would be brought to a conclusion. He was unfortunately in the position of being one of the speak ers, and he was perfectly ready to make any arrange ment on the subject. He wished to learn whether it was intended that the debate should end to night. Several Hon Members on the Opposition side of the House rose and exclaimed—" To-morrow night." The Right Hon. Bart. then sat down. On the Speaker putting the question, Sir Valentine Blake rose several times to address the House, but, the order not having been read, he was compelled to sit down amid much laughter. STATE OF IRELAND—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The Order of the Day for the commencement of the adjourned debate having been read, Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL said he should not detain the House long, and he should confine himself as much as possible to certain statements made by the Attorney-General for Ireland. At the commencement of his speech the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman thought proper to attack the traversers with respect to their conduct towards the Government reporter, Mr. Bond Hughes. Now, the case with respect to Mr. Bond Hughes stood thus :—He lodged an information that at a certain dinner at Mullaghmast, he saw Mr. Barrett, and he stated that Mr. Barrett spoke there. He further swore that he afterwards saw Mr. Barrett at a meeting held in Abbey-street, and that the day after the proclamation against the meeting at Clon tarf, he saw Mr. Barrett on the evening of that day at a dinner at the Rotunda, and that Mr. Barrett spoke at that dinner. n the 15th or 16th of October the traversers attended at the chambers of Mr. Justice Burton, to put in bail. Among those traversers was Mr. Barrett, and among the parties attending was the Crown witness, Mr. Bond Hughes. Mr. Hughes went there for the express purpose of correcting an error as to the name of the traversers, the Rev. Mr. Tierney and the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell. He then saw Mr. Barrett, and in the course of his evidence, stated that he neither saw Mr. Barrett at the Rotunda nor at the meeting at Mullaghmast. Subsequently a summons was served on Mr. Bond Hughes to appear at the police office, to answer a complaint of wilful and corrupt per jury, but Mr. Kemmis never alluded to the statement made by Mr. Hughes, at the Judge's chambers ; but suffered him to remain under the imputa tion of perjury. On the 3d or 4th day of term a writ of mandamus was applied for. No men tion was made, on the part of the Crown soli citor, of the fact that Mr. Bond Hughes had committed a mistake. Now he (Mr. M. O'Connell) thought they could not entirely acquit Mr. Bond Hughes for allowing so grave a charge as perjury to hang over him, when it was obviously his duty to take the first oppor • tunity of meeting it. But he was a Crown witness, and it must be supposed that he was in the hands of the officers of the Crown. Those Crown officers contented themselves with resisting the applica tion for the mandamus moved for on the part of the traversers, and they allowed the charge to hang over Mr. Bond Hughes from the 16th of October until he was examined as a witness on the trial, when, in the course of cross-examination, it was elicited from him that he bad committed a mistake. He thought the only blame that could be attached to Mr. Bond Hughes was, that he allowed the , matter to rest in the hands of the Crown solicitor instead of taking it up himself and placing it in its proper light before the public. The moment it was placed in its proper light before the public, that moment the obloquy which had been cast upon Mr. Hughes ceased. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney-General for Ireland) had alluded much in his speech to the caption of the indictment, and tried to explain his motives for refusal. He (Mr. M. O'Connell) was sure that it was as unusual to refuse an application of this nature in Ireland as. it was in England. When the matter was brought before Mr. Justice Perrin, he at once concurred in the propriety of allowing the tra versers to have a caption of the indictment. Again, the traversers being allowed to traverse, a four days' rule was moved, but the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman demurred, and eventually, after much dif ficulty, the traversers succeeded in getting the rule. When the Chief Justice asked the Attorney-General whether it was customary to grant such a rule, he replied, that the ordinary practice might be so, but he, as chief officer of the Crown, felt privileged to oppose it. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had spoken in terms most laudatory of the, rish Bar, and he (Mr. M. O'Con nell) thought it equal to that of any other country, but still he could not help reiterating the question put by the Hon. Member for Worcester, as to whether the Attorney-General for England would have acted under similar circumstances as the Irish Attorney-General had done. He (Mr. M. O'Connell) would ask the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General for England, how he would have asserted such a prerogative? The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney- General for Ireland) had complained that the traversers, through their agents, had resorted to every means—even the most frivolous—to procure delay, and frustrate the objects and ends of the prosecution, but he (Mr. M. O'Connell) contended that the interests of the tra verses imperatively demanded that course to be pursued, and every step which had been taken had been taken according to the strict letter of the law. In Eng land the practice had invariably been to afford every facility to the traversers for preparing their defence by supplying a caption of the indictment, and every other document they might require. He should next allude to another point in those trials: when the bills were before the grand jury it was proposed to alter a misnomer, and upon Mr. M'Donough resisting the application, the Attorney-General called upon WDonough, who was a Queen's Counsel, to pro duce his license to act as counsel for the traversers. He thought such a demand did not, at least, tend to raise the Right Hon. and Learned Gen tleman in the estimation of the Irish bar. The Act of Parliament provided that no person who was not on the list should be placed thereon, unless he himself gave notice of his name not appearing on the . list. And the Act of Parliament further provided that no person's name which was already on the list should be taken off without notice being given to that person. The course pursued by the traversers was therefore strictly legal. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, last night, when he stated that the attorneys for the traversers were admitted to examine the notices of objection to the jurors, it h to y d w t h o om stat r e etai t n h e a d t other attorneys an dcounsel , the traversers knew not, were in attendance to object to any names the traversers might propose to be placed on the lists. They managed their affairs very well, for the traversers never could ascertain by whom they had been retained. When the Attorney-General lest night denounced the conduct of Mr. Mahoney, he omit. • l e d to state this i ftwt, that counsel attended ou ~.. .. .~ , M .. ,f}: .f4~..0 ...... 1