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

Judge Mr. B on d H ughes said he went to the house o f outZgr information—mind to correct an affidavit. He lodged an rmation—mind that—in which there was no referen cee....., to Barrett. He went to Judge Bur iZiao_, :louse for the purpose of correcting an saw l i ton there he saw Barrett. When he person m at' he immediately said, " I did not see that the meeting "—" I have n that wh'eh bra not a f act e H ' . swum . h L e saw Mr. Wray and spoke to him— the clerk to the Crown solicitor—told him— him of the mistake he had made in his affidavit, and nesr him to correct it. What did Wray say— asd dhe do —did he get the information corrected ? N 0• 0. There was beasebeen ed upon the trial what reply Wray made to sio r eq_nest, said he did not remember what Wray Bond Hughes saw Mr. Kemmis, and said to him 5 b, i ,".1.", made a mi s take in my information—what t i k r 2 - do? —I stated th a t w hi c h was no t t rue ." Wh a t "s'azarais do —was there a new information prepared? -- eo w i e ns e t tbe old statem en t amen d ( d ? N o , A w arr ant Barrett had been granted, and that warrant was tan to bee recalled.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from se a pposition.) Lest you should think or imagine the , moment that I am wantonly impeaching characte r of this immaculate Crown Solicitor— it,G,F_a,;tr)—who cha rge d us w ith ta m pering v• ith t th 7 .. tn• the R oman Catholic official—(Bear, hear)— e tampering with a man who is at this moment in mi t r e Ploent of the Government--(Hear, hear)—l *hick .aka tomou the statement of Mr. Bond Hughes, h er . the Attorney-General, I suppose, thought did not (IL at all upon the subject—Bond Hughes, a perjurer ! m onstrous ! H e d enounce d t h e persecut i on o f t hi s v enal, but he did no t t hi n k it a t a ll re l evan t t o com eie„,er'slo cate it to the House.—(Hear, hear.) It was on his ei,Lranaination by Mr. M‘Donough that the fact i t Zlt; it di d not appear in the direct examination. ra e ge u S SWOre t o w h at h appene d at t h e M u ll ag h mas t )x 4 ' 4 % and made out the case against O'Connell. ..lis tr a et a word about the mistake made by 'h e l l ,: I LI to Barrett—one of the men whose tome was at stake. Not a syllable did the At cro4-General ask Hughes about Barrett. The tild es; had no curiositon the subject.—(Laughter, of r tes of" Hear, hear.') It would have been an act Jererogation to have touched upon any unfortunate Sgitrehension of Mr. Hughes_ ; but upon his cross- Wa s eu 4 ./tiOn b i g the subtle Mr. M'Donough the matter pre bract will read from an indisputable authority hou ILract from the cross-examination by Mr. M‘Do- " Take the life, Jur. The paper is called in Dublin the Recorder of .1 When we do take the means whereby he lives." ze Ope l • 14 1, The charge was corrupting a public officer, and for what teti e 7 r ;. sl Donough—You have taken various opportu- purpose ? For the purpose of removing Roman Catho -110111 correcting your statements ? Mr. Hughes—l lies from the jury. Now, is that plausible ?—(Cheers.) „e Mr. some. Would much an accusation be received with acclamation have M`Donough—(Having seen the information) by any gentlemen except those who had been previously as nih ave not named Mr. Barrett. Was he there? Mr. heated by the singularly operative eloquence of the Right lion ; 7-I made a mistake about him on a former occa- Hon. and Learned Gentleman.—(Loud cheering.) When int u it e was not present, I took the earliest oppor- I found a British House of Commons cheering on an „ • of correcting that mistake. Hon. Gentleman while lie was blasting the character of sp eak r • M`Don oug h—Th en I p resume th a t he did not a private individual, I was astonished at the want of just “there ? M r. Hughes—He d id not. f ee li ng on the part of the Attorney-General—l was as uM`Donough—When you were under examine- tonished that such an accusation, so destitute of truth, or abo ut the Solicitor-General, he asked you nothing I should say without a shadow of probability, should ask s ., tne dinner at the Rotunda? Mr. Hughes—He be received with acclamat i o n b y a British House of ei te r ne . nothing about it. Commons. — (Loud cheers.) When the fa cts are so sele. i • s _M`Donough—was Barrett there? Mr. Hughes much disputed, when such contradictory assertions a r e for b.' '"irrett was not there. I mistook somebody else made, when I say sixty names were lost, when you say " Mr. at, twenty-seven, when the Recorder says twenty-four alto ssoitilies, Donough—l think you stated you took the gether, of whom sixteen were Catholics , ought we n ot Ite e t " °Pportunity o f c or rec ting the mistake ? Mr. to have a Committee to inquire - into, and to search the ti ne e O B . -- 1 did so when I was at the house of Judge matter to the bottom? If there is corruption connected with a great State prosecution—a matter of such g / es--, h—You saw Barrett at the house of magnitude —if corruption had been charged in a and perceived your mistake ? Mr. case where a verdict has been ob tained, which • .4 At • verdict has been made a matter of triumph— With e r ' M`Donough—Did you amend the mistake then if with respect to it we are contrad i ct in g each other, and tlid w lit i ard to B arre tt? M r . H ug h es —l did not, but I meeting each other at every step—if you say , yes , when cov e 4,, t ° reference to the Rev. Mr. Tierney. I dis- I say, no — is not just you shou ld g rant us a committee ? tit% " ray mistake with reference to Barrett, and men- —(Cheers.) That will not be a vote of censure on the to Mr. Wray, the clerk to Kemmis. Government. A committee of inquiry into the state of lie t ic:• AVM/sough—What did Kemmis say? Mr. Ireland would be a vote of censure, but this committee )11 8...... j . can't recollect what Kemmis said. will not be a vote of ce nsure. Then g ive us the coin ittr. tt o r ' nyDonough—When did you mention this to mittee. Let us know ho w all this has ha pp ened. I ltiett 4trai a? Mr. Hughes—l have already said that I presume s after a suggestion, which seems to be approved 4sd i4l3n a nswer It at Jud ge B ur ton's house." by all sides, that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir itobert 4, *QM 11,7 11 "ert0 furtherquestions,Mr.Hughes again said Peel) who intro duced the Act into Ireland, and it is to °f th e ,s' . Mr. s K emmis made no observation when he told him his merit, for he is a g reat le g al reformer—l p resume teen i:stakeKemmis made no observation—that that in vindication of his own Bill, and to rescue it from the aid e a, a° Hughes, whose character was so impeached, imputation of unfair working, he will not deny us the means hiedes..ose conscience was so disturbed, yet Kemmis of investigating those transactions which do clearly re !leer e l l observation about it.—(Loud cries of "Hear, quire investigation. Let us see what took place when • 04,, 5 ,"'n the Opposition.) Bond Hughes, one of the the discovery was made, no matter whether the names afitt e4 r4 witnesses for the Crown, had made made two were 24, or 60, or 27—a certain number were left out, Atiel P 6 Kemmis on his oath, which turned out to be untrue, a wrong was done. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord 11 „tten;:: 4 erareiS made no observation, and made no Stanley) says, and most justly, that on the ballot the 'l4" ,to remedy the mistake.—(Renewed cries of names are selected by chance. To be sure they may lef t "ar , " from the Opposition.) No, the mistake be, but the chances ought to be equal on both sides - i nfor m . u ncorrected, the matter was left as it ,was, the the Government must not play with loaded dice.— . 14 bi a ns were known to be false—they were left so. (Cheers.) It is mentioned in Rabelais, that a distin- Li th e rt make a mistake in the Christian name guishe d j ud g e wh en puzzled with a case , used to throw rtect e a s ay. Mr. Tierney which you subsequently dice for the decision , and according to the dice used to e n, en Mr. Bond Hughes—Yes. Was there decide either for the plaintiff - or defendant. But in this tett ? •tection made in the case of Mr. Bar- case the dice have always been loaded for the Crown. 'loam 44 r. Bond Hughes—No. I merely men- We contend in this case we hate not had our just pro , portion of contingencies. Why, it was an old practice t °r•q eo the House must recollect that the Solid- of this House, in choosing Committees, to put names of si enita era' had been guilty of such a sin of orris- Members into a glass, and to draw them by chance. 'tent hat which I mentioned just now—and in the Now , suppose. the names of twenty - seven Tories had 14 §4,_. • l if i s t s 'ce the House will I think not be been left out—(Cheers)—suppose that by any larceny , 474 4 . : '1 that the Attorney-General made that or loss — and very often one touches on the other— °O against Mr. O'Connell, that he had said twenty-seven •or sixty names of Tory Members were °Cllol,7t_dHugliet mentioned the matter to the Crown- left out, and that it turned out a Whig Committee—men to rescue himself from the result of the pro- bound by their oaths, and as little likely to act contrary .I.taesst,ss-(Cheers.) Oh ! Sir, last night the Attorney- to their consciences as a Protestant jury, and suppose Slid plought he had made out his case.—(Cheers the omission were discovered, what would the Tories ttetto e ter.) It was a matter of great joy and con- say tben ?—(Loud cheers.) Would they not say, give 100 , the manner in which he thought he had ex- us a new ballot? Put the twenty-seven names back? °N. i n "Pse points. But, Sir, hope the House will W ou ld not That be. Said.? and very fairly said; and is not th e 60 ai Mind that those gentlemen who charged me with thi s exac tl y - th e case h ere ?—(L ou d c h eers .) Th ere were eu lt d,..• truntion o f .Grath—who charged me with per- ten Catholics left o n th e li st.; suppose b y an y c h anc e tet is :f t g•M`Grath to act with treachery — the House will there liaccheezi. thirteen, the Crown could only have s ittio wrx that those gentlemen, so liberal upon this accu- struck •offtwelve, one would have been left; they could against us, and, to use a common phrase, so not have got rid of him. Of our fair number us, to turn the tables on us by calumny, have them- of tickets in this lottery we have been de , 4 474, h i e r: a thes e t ransac ti ons , adopte d t h e cour se which I prived, and a • wrong has in that particular to spealt.--( lid Tes ting which it i s no t now my intention been done us, whether it was the result of fortune or the Sip, the bills had cheers.) The indictment had been sent result o f fraud.—(Cheers.) Then, what was the course sondes on - we adopted ? We took this cou rse, we m a de a m otion to the back of the indictment were demanded by quash the panel, and here the Attorney-General was s . defendants. t r o That was a most reasonable applica- perfectly triumphant. H e did not sa y a word of the tinited S uch an application in this country—this country, next proceeding., but I will take care that I will do so. th ., : with Ireland (a n d I h ope l ong to b e un it e d to The Court said we cannot quash the panel. We then tint .ccountry in equal rights and privileges); Ireland, made various offers—we said, let the Recorder of Dub . • * of __ oeuntry which Honourable Gentlemen opposite lin review the list. The Court said there is a difficulty lib ert ls__d_ to be united in a perfect equality, and in that. We said put all the names in the ballot again, • bee n say in England the invariable practice has including those left out. The Court said there is a difli oe th y, furnish to th e t raversers t h e names w h ic h were cu l ty i n t h a t. I n s h or t, th e C ou rt refused to quash the te ru Z . Ottk of th e i n di ctment. M ay I net as k t h e A t - pane l , an d re f use d to g i ve any ki n d o f reme dy. But a ".'General for England to correct me if Ibe wrong? most impartial step was afterwards taken. We chal f te n Attorney -General intimated that he was correct.) lenged the array, and on that the Attorney-General said ' e 'k thiusC' e rn o e un out high . authority, then, in saying . that not a word.—(The Attorney-General was understood to t ee try, it is the invariable custom to furnish say here, " I did.") Ido not remember with any par alqt7,,,ett.party with the names of the witnesses on the ticular minuteness the circumstances that did take place, !tie the Indictment. In Ireland, where, of course, there but the House will forgive me, if r, draw their attention • Fetaterfeet equality—(Th e Ri g ht H onoura ble Gen- t o what Ido recollect of the m . W e ch a ll en g e d the ar yersers here spoke in a tone of bitter irony)—the tra- ray, and the form of that challenge is most material. In Ihtss e aPPlied to be furnished with a list of that challenge we stated that " several lists in a certain , 4 _ 4l tint na mes, and they were met by a peremptory paper-writing, purporting to be a :general list of the this what is called assimilating the jury, and purporting to be made out of the several lists t~Nitrnistr 7115 G en a ,;ori of the law between the two countries ? set forth and signed as aforesaid, was illegally "nen opposite are very willing to talk of dulently made out, for the purpose and anent of mitl when it suits their purpose. The Noble Lord prejudicing the defendants." These were all the facts (L ift th e a i r)" for the Colonies ha said, again and again, put in issue, to use the legal phrase. We not only -911 1seees., Juu gas were perfectly unanimous, on every mentioned the names, but we also put in issue the fraud. • t i l e n ilie7e‘Yit.h the trials. But I assert that it is_ only We put in_issue the . . intention to prejudice the Wen -nsehs manity serves your purpose that youoly on it, dents. We put in issue what you have suggested he d.is_s_en_t__ient v pinion was expressed-- , - has been done by the defendants for their own benefit. hen? If the Crown had joined issue in these facts, which • la • ' z 'ne—When Mr. Justice Perrin pronounced might have been tried in half an hour by the Court, for Na ion th 44_0 4 with th at the traversers were entitled td . be fur- it was not a question to be tried by a jury, we having. se ts e names of-the witnesses. Oh; Of course put in issue the most material facts, the loss of the notice taken of their dissentience, but how names which was material, and the allegation of fraud th'fati th e ,, e ‘ a c unanimity of the judges blazoned forth which was still more so, was it not the duty of the I , l .oth er W as a concurrence of opinion on the part of Crown to hate joined issue upon them under these eir• med h judges with the Chief Justice, when he en • eumstances? if it had joined issue, and the decision had ttneer e .s' Vow of the law as applicable to the case ? been in its favour, there would be an end of our objec t will ask the House if it does not think tions, and if the facts had been found against it, then 47 1 4 10 : 1 , 1 zrom the harmony of the bench, Right Hon. of course the panel must have been altered, or some b„ '4 G entlemen and Noble Lords opposite, other steps must have been taken. Then how did the cens eclnences so available to their Court decide ? Were the Court unanimous ? The - tire ‘s , course toth_eue.h. an. ,,, ,seinntrienee of policy and prejudices, that Court were not. Mr. Justice Perrin, who introduced of opinion prevailed on the . the Act into Ireland, which he borrowed ,. from the re drs'e of 'ere! " equally unfavourable to their formed code of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) — eh? Poli cy and prejudice in those trials, is not to be Mr. Justice Perrin, who knew the operation of that a e Ttt th at .a I stated before, Mr. Justice Perrin de- Act, who was familiar with all its details, who had ea es lt wa s s, to h, a Matter of right to allow the tra- scrutinised and adopted its machinery—Mr. Justice pr.„l4ti rton the list of the witnesses ; and Mr. Jus- Perrin decided that the challenge of the array WAS at=.. e h ' Englishman, with some remnant left good, and said that the .demurrer shou ld be over ,---magnis,at'acteristies by which his countrymen were ruled .—(Hear.) But the Crown took advan- Oats ' , 0 7 0 , said, although it could not be required as tage of the decision of' the majority of the Court, 1 10 .1. ten % tight, yet it would be injudicious to refuse and went to trial, although one of the judges had declared 1/ 4 "' or th e e Altorney-General. who went into all that that the list of the jury had been stained and corrupted so with respect to the right of the tra- by suspicion. My Learned Friend sugeests to me that i ron e d th a names of the witnesses, he should have a demurrer always admits the facts for the purposes of -.• 14. Mr, Whi teside , 7 h O i Piniona of Justice Burton. Justice Perrin, the argument. That is the truth ; but I did not dwell let' t rnalle....e t _ tt aide, the eloquent counsel for Mr. upon it, because it is a legal fiction. I dwell upon what h ay e so'( Loud and continued cheering)—and then is more substantial. The Crown had the opportunity of been 2 .4 remember that an application which would ascertaining a fact of the utmost materiality.— Ik e Veor w - it et ed in this country had been denied in (Hear.) The Crown shrank from that investiga wcf7u-.4l4edstieeikilanding thestrongopinionsmentioned by tion, and went on with the case, with the protest of one Jughminded Judge Burton, the decision of the judges against it. The verdict which you have A tt. :t o te:sid e. , e t erten, and the strong arguments of Mr. , obtained has been obtained through the interven , ise t i r ney.G e s u ear, hear. and cheers.) I admit that the I tion of a jury condemned by one of the judges t was __noerel had allowed the trial to be postponed, who sat in that Court.—(Hear, hear.) If all the ah - ` 1 4 4 ok th r e r 'fed that it was necessary to procure evi- judges were unanimous as to the abstract law stated w ho there we l'att of the Crown,. and the next was, ' lsy the Chief Justice, the judges were not unani sex tht:was k: e but twenty-five Catholics on the panel, mous, they were not at all unanimous, as to the verdict Alon 6 apft i , ll that many more ought to have been ; because one of the judges condemned the panel, the • N dt tcad e b y Jury list. But what I deny is the asser- foundation of the verdict ; and if the panel be shaken, 1 111,2fthe c ' l e Hon. Gentleman that this was the , the entire superstructure, if I may so say, raised upon itie..7ent tha t urt, for Judge Burton expressed his asto- , it, must of course fail too.—(Cheers.) I come now to 'll4, atta only twenty-five Catholics were upon the another portion of this case, the striking off of Roman b e c std L ea "'nen this surprise was expressed the Catholics from the jury. I see I am occupying the tie di d rn ed Attorney - -General, having the case House too long—(Loud cheers)—but it is a case I N N:: h e' alle ersent to postpone the trial with the of paramount importance. It is a case in tko . , th e .g (I, to allow time to the traversers to which I was counsel, in which I inevitably took f lf th e necessaryA evidence for their defence. But a very warm interest—l should feel ashamed • ktiktei r Post • ~n'tneYsGeneral had refused this applica- if I had,not—and with the facts of which I am, to a wee -roretedirs' ner aeut, and insisted on the traversers certain extent, inure familiar than others—and lam not th e Itt -kpe rfect a , te mt ly d and that upon a panel which conscious that in anything which I have stated I have ht p eorde r Which I say fearlessly and distinctly departed iti•the slightest degree from the facts.— (Hear, l ent ,. • St/ av riself declared to be imperfect.-- hear.) Now it is said by Mr. Kenimis that there were Cfrts (the Recorder of Dublin)—lt was ten Roman Catholics on the list. Eight of them I ad „ mit were most properly struck •,ff.—(Hear, hear.) I .., wt n 0, the S' it was imperfect. I now come to a cannot for a moment pretend that eight men who were • cen‘ Ir a , 6 J ury list, and I shall begin by declaring members of the Repeal Association, or subscribers to sat tl r t or tL e Pl., and sincere conviction that to the Be- its funds, ought to have been • retained upon the jury. e Ili ghte ,, , lty or 0 . 44 ,wit 4 ea t moral there was to be attached I could no more contend for it than I could contend end re e „s bla me for any one of the transees that Mr. ' , sheriff I , alkner ,, should have been retained upon o Pie p f i er th k T et " b t i l ) lists, and I belie% e that he jury.— (Cries of " Ileur, from the Oosition.) , Butthere bo na. LOY it right hand sheuld wither rather were to men who were not members of t Rcpeal Repeal Me e vs" ey es , e I make this statement, in which I feel , Fund. Mark the affidavit of Mr. Kenunis Lit is in these • for 26 Learn e who knows the Right Honour- ' atur rae if Gentleman will• terms :—He says "that he believed, and still believes, saY that - , n although concur,hethe members s the Repeal Association, or had subscribed to 41 4 4 1) 0 4 --it was his Paramount d e concur' d its und Now i Mr. Hendrick is a -Roman Catholic, Kok was his dutyduty to have remained and about Mr. endriek the Attorney-General did not Cont i g nin to have been present when say a single word last night ; he did not even mention the jury list was being.made up. lie his name.—(Hear, hear.) Now see what course has had a painful task to do, but I have, at the same time, to make some allowance for the acts of the Right Honour ab'e Gentlemen. The Dublin Evening Mail—by the by, a high authority (ti these matters—had stated that the Right Hon. Gentleman had been compelled to be in at tendance upon an eminent statesman for the purpose of a consultation. preparatory to making an increase in the grant devoted in the purpose of national education in Ireland.—;Loud laughter.) But having acquitted the Recorder oF every • sort of moral impute- . Von.. , til' th:•re are some circumstances which do appear to me. with. respect to he m vision lists, which were quite , inexplicable, and which appear to me eminently to cal, for the remarks used by Mr. Justice Perrin, when he said that he thought with respect to those lists there were grounds to conclude there was something worse than accident. Now what is the case here? Is it because. Mr. M`Grath is a Roman Catholic—is it therefore that it is expected that the defendants (some of whom are Roman Catho lics) have employed their influence for the purpose? Now see what a monstrous charge you prefer against Mr. M‘Grath, without the possibility of sustaining it. For what is the charge ? That the defendants actually purloined or lost 15 names of Roman Catholics in one parish, the parish of St. Audeon's, as if they were anxious to exclude the Roman Catholics from the jury !—(Cheers.) A list containing 15 names is lost, and it is alleged that Mr. M'Grath, a Roman Catholic gentleman at present in the employment of theßecorder of Dublin, who has not dismissed him, who won't dis miss him—(Cheers)—was guilty of a most nefarious practice, and that insinuation is made ky her Majesty's Attorney-General !—(Loud cheers.) Now, is this a fair mode of proceeding?—(Cheers.) When they found a mistake—l will call it a mistake for the present—but a mistake most pernicious to the defendant, depriving him of the benefit of the Act of Parliament introduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Ma jesty's Government—when you found that mistake operating against the defendant—you say he did it him self—why, do you think that he committed suicide ? There stands the statement.—(Lord Stanley here made some observation across the table which we did not catch.) Let us have no mistake on this point.—(Hear, hear.) What I said was this, that, last night, the At torney-General charged corruption upon us. He charged us with corrupting a public officer, a man whose liveli hood depended on his office—a man from whom we should r: , been taken about Mr. Hendrick. The Noble Lord the I Secretary for the Colonies, who appears to know a great deal more about this part of the case than the Irish A ttorney-G eneral, told us that Mr. Hendrick was consi 'ered to be a Protestant and Con servative. Who told him so ? Did Mr. Kemmis ? No; Mr. Kemmis believed him to be a Roman Catholic. —(Hear, hear.) Well. now, are we really to try a matter of this signal importance—namely, the exclusion of Roman Catholics, upon the specific grounds of Mr. I K-mmis's affidavit, or by looking at the letters which passed upon the subject? Is that the way to satisfy the public upon a question of such deep and vital interest ? You see the secret of this case in a moment. You make an affidavit—men are generally bound by an affidavit —and you say that the whole ten are either members of the Repeal Association or have subscribed to its funds. Mr. Hendrick is not a member of the Association—Mr. Hendrick never subscribed to the repeal rent—Mr. Hendrick is a Roman Catholic. It is stated that he was a Roman Catholic. I requested my Hon, Friend the Member for the county of Wexford, when this matter was in agitation, to go to the house of Mr. Hendrick, with whom he was acquainted, and inquire whether Mr. Hendrick was a Roman Catholic, or had subscribed to the Repeal Association? The answer was, that Mr. Hendrick was a Roman Catholic, but that he had never subscribed to the Repeal Association —never subscribed to its funds. You prove to be mis taken, and your mistake is of a very important kind.- -(Hear, hear.) Let me now come to the case of Mr. Dunn. Now, Mr. Dunn is not a member of the Association, and never subscribed to the funds of the Association. It is said that he is a Repealer, and the Noble Lord observed that I was a quibbler when I drew a distinction. He said, " There are quibbles which may sometimes be employed in a court of justice, but they ought not to be resorted to in. Parliament." But is there no distinction, I ask, between being a member of the Repeal Association and a subscriber to its funds, and being an advocate of the repeal of the union ?—(Hear, hear from the Opposition.) Suppose that Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Bright, and my Hon Friend behind memer• in dicted, together, of course, with the Globe, the Chronicle , The Sun, and all the newspapers favourable to the re peal of the corn-laws, suppose that all these were indicted for a conspiracy. Why, it would be very easy to say we will set aside all who are subscribers to the Anti-Corn-law League, and all who are sub scribers to The Sun and the other papers ; but would you set aside a man because he was an advocate of free trade, or because he had subscribed his name to a requi sition calling a meeting in favour of a repeal of the corn laws ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers, from the Opposition.) Or let me put another case. Suppose the Tories had come in in the year 1831, and suppose that certain con spirators, or certain persons alleged to have conspired, had been indicted for endeavouring to subvert the Con stitution by means of intimidatkn.—(Great laughter.) Suppose my Noble Friend on my right, and my Hon. Friend the - Secretary of State for the Home Department —(Laughter)—and the Noble Lord 'opposite, had been indicted for a conspiracy, we will say to swamp the House of Lords, would there not, in that case, have been a distinction drawn between a juror who was personally an advocate of Parliamentary Reform and the members of Brookes's Club, where might be heard, perhaps, in cendiary and seditious speeches, delivered at a table I amidst rapturous applause ?—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord said I was a quibbler because I ventured to say there was a great difference between a Repealer and a member of the Repeal Association, the one being charge able with conspiracy, and the other not. Quibbles are bad things, but Ministerial sophistications are much worse.—(Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) I think the Noble Lord must now see that I was not quibbling when I drew the distinction in question. At all events he must see that there is a most marked differ ence between the affidavit of Mr. Kemmis and the statement made by the Noble Lord, who tells us that there were four Dunns, but that it is not pretended that Michael Dunn was a member of the Repeal Association.—(Hear.) I think we have clearly made out that two of these men were unobjec tionable, and that you were not justified, therefore, in striking off their names..---(Cheers) Now, what ought to have been done under the circumstances ? The panel was bad ; the panel was vitiated ; it was so represented by a judge ; you yourselves admit that a number of names have been struck off. Every Roman Catholic, you say, was to be struck off. Would it not have been a wise course to consent that a new panel should be ap pointed ? If the parties had consented to a new panel that panel would have been binding. I believe no lawyer in this House will deny that if the parties had afterwards made an objection they would have been stopped. Ido not know what may be the opinion of the Attorney-General, but the opinion of eminent lawyers in this House supports the view which I have taken. But suppose there had been no consent, was there not another expedient ? Would not the rule for a special jury have been discharged ?—(Hear.) The Sheriff of Dublin (Mr. Latouche) is a gentleman of the very highest respectability. When the Irish Municipal Bill passed you retained the appointment of sheriff for Dublin, though you had not taken it from the Corporation of London. The appointment was vested in the Crown, because you said that if the Corporation were to appoint the sheriff, the new sheriffs would be just as bad as the old ones ; they would as certainly be Repealers, as their predecessors were Anti-Repealers.—(Laughter.) Now, I do not say whether you were right or wrong in taking this course ; but the Crown having taken the appointment into its own hands, and appointed such men as Mr. Latouche, I maintain that you would have acted most wisely, if you had left the appointment to that officer.— (Hear, hear.) You use the words " com mon jury," but the words " common jury" generally mean a jury selected from a particular class. The jury who tried this case were persons compa ratively of an inferior class. I do not mean to say that the middle classes are not a proper depository of political power. Ido not mean to say that it is not wise that your special juries should be composed of Protestant tanners, Protestant piano-forte tuners, and Protestant grocers.—(Great laughter.) I cast no reflec tion on any one, but Igo back to the question, why did you not permit the Sheriff to return a common jury the Sheriff appointed by yourselves ? Mr. Latouche would have returned men of the highest con sideration—Protestants and Catholics. He would not have returned Repealers, but he would have returned men of great influence; he would have returned bank directors, merchants, and men whose station and con duct placed them above suspicion. You had the means of doing that, but you did not do it. It was a singular boast of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that he had recourse to a special jury in this case, when, in stead of having recourse in the formation of the jury to men upon whom the high character and moral habits of Mr. Latouche himself might have been impressed, he selected the men I mentioned. What reason had the Right Hon. Baronet for not having a common jury ? Was it a case in which the Crown might not have availed itself of its prerogative of challenging the jury? My Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde) said they would not have dared to exercise their prerogative. 'The Attorney-General for Ireland said he would have dared—(Hear, hear) --certainly no man can deny his intrepidity.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But my Hon. and Learned Friend says that the Crown is controlled by public opinion—the Crown, if not in Ire land, at least in this country, meting under the coercion of British sentiment, would not have ventured upon an act at once so culpable and so imprudent as to strike off the names of persons of high respectability because they were Roman Catholics. ; —(Cheers.) If you were sincere in the manifestation of your desire to have Roman Ca tholics upon the jury, you had a very obvious mode of carrying your purpose into effect and realising that desire when you found your mistake.. From the panel from which the Roman Catholics had been excluded you might have got a common jury whose verdict would have been unimpeacheil, and the whole controversy which has taken place, and all the agitation connected with it, might have been fortunately sverted.—(Cheers.) NoNk under these circumstances, I ask is it wonderful that in Ireland great excitement should have taken place? Is it astonishing that the Roman Catholics of Ireland should have felt indignant upon the subject? — (Cheers.) Is it wonderful a great public meeting should have taken place in every district of the country on the matter? Were these meetings called by factious men? At the head of one requisition calling in Dublin a meet ing was the name of Lord Kemnare, one of the most unqualified advocates of the union, a man of great pos sessions and ancient birth, and closely allied to this country.—(Hear, hear.) That nobleman felt the insult you had offered to him, and he signed the requisition, not for the purpose of gratifying any factious feeling, but from a sense of the insult that had been offered to him as a Roman Catholic. There was a circumstance that gave additional poignancy to the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. That circumstance was this :—The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Attorney- General for Ireland, thought fit to advert to conduct I pursued fifteen years ago, in a trial at Clonmel. He will excuse me if I venture to advert in this House to an expression of political opinion by which he made Himself most conspicuons in Ireland. An opinion of which I believe the Right Hon. Baronet, at the head of her Majesty'e Government, is not aware —(Hear, hear.) Ido not mention this for the purpose of malevolence—(lronical cheers from the Ministerial benches)—l bear no ill-will to the Right Hon. Gentle man.—Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) I have no motive for ill-will towards him, he never did me wrong. That Right Hon. Gentleman imagines that a conspiracy was entered into at the bar for the purpose of exaspe rating him and wounding his feelings, that was unfor tunately a mistake on his part ; but I do take upon my honour to assure him, that there was no such intention ever entertained.—(Hear, hear.) But he is a public man, and in speaking of public men opposed to him, he does not exhibit, any particular delicacy, and he must expect when political antagonists come to scrutinise his con duct and examine his motives, they will ask "what manner of man he is," and what course he has pursued. He, last night, adverted to a speech I made at a trial. He said he was sorry fur what he bad stated, and, as he says he is sorry for it, he is to be forgiven.— (Hear, hear.) It was impossible that Roman Catholics, when they came to compare his conduct at the trial with opinions he had expressed, should not have suspicions that unrair dealing was intended in their regard. The fact I allude to is this—a great public assembly took place in Dublin in the year 1837, where the principal Conservatives of that city met together; that great public assembly moved a resolution, and he took a most active Lytton, i n othing Io ny part in the proceedings, some of which related to the question of education.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposi - n t . t ) 0 n, T to h That mention lv ti h o a n ,h ienemamapdeaeertae meetin g ; with it I have g m w as as ter at i t n en c d h e a d n b ee y r lf y— r. by Mr. Lefroy whom you have made a:judge—b7 Mr. Jackson whom you have also made a judge and by the Right Honourable Gentleman whom you have made Attorney-Genera I. The resolutiOns passed at that meeting were of a most violent character. They declared that the Protestants of Ireland were at that time in as perilous a condition as in the year 1641; that THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 23, 1844. is the effect of one of the resolutions I hold in my hand. In the year 1641 a most frightful massacre of the Pro testants of Ireland is said to have taken p'ace, and those gentleman in the Rotunda declared that the Protestants of Ireland were then in as perilous a condition as at the above period, and that the slaughter of their coun trymen was contemplated by the Roman Catholics of Ireland.—(llear, hear.) But what does the Right Hon. Gentleman say He referred me to a copy of his speech, printed by Milliken. He did not tell us that that copy was corrected by him, or by his authority. But I have the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman here. Every one here knows that speech was made by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and that everybody in Dublin did not go to Milliken's for it. Then, what does he say? " I am sorry that circumstances hate induced me to be lieve that Roman Catholics have very little regard for the sanctity of an oath."---(Cries of " Hear, hear. ) Well now, that was open—that was manly. I prefer it to insidious imputation—(Cheers)—to hints, conveyed with an assumption of gentleness and a suavity of voice. —(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) felt indignant at the proceedings adopted by the Irish Roman Catholics. The feeling of indignation entertained .by them was not confined to them. You will admit, I believe, that the English Roman Catholics are not Repealers—that the high Roman Catholic aristocracy of England, men of exalt( d position and ancient birth, and exceedingly moderate in politics are 'not ales of, and co-partners with, Daniel O'Con nell, What effect did your proceedings produce upon them ? The Earl of Shrewsbury, when the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury came into office, wrote a letter to the Catholics of Ireland, in which he recommended them to support the Administration of the Right Honourable Baronet. What is the letter which the Earl of - Shrewsbury, the premier Earl of Eng land, now writes ? The blood of the Talbots caught fire at last, when insult was offered to his co-religionists in Ireland? He says in his letter to Lord Camp, on the occasion of the Catholic meeting in London, after expressing his inability to attend, that he was anxious for an opportunity of expressing his indignation at the fresh insult that had been offered to the Catholic popu lation of the kingdom by the conduct of the law officers of the Crown in the preliminary proceedings on the interesting - and important trials pending in Dublin. That comes from a man himself inclined ori ginally to give his supp or t to th e Administrati on of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and who wrote a letter in which he said that the Right Hon. Gentleman had carried Catholic Emancipation, and that confidence should be placed in him. These facts are startling— (Hear, hear)—and there is no Roman Catholic with one spark of spirit but must resent them. See what an anomaly this is ! You repeal the Catholic Emancipa tion Act, practically, as far as the jury box is con cerned. We are admitted to the bench of justice ; you have sent there the late Baron Wolfe, and Sir Michael O'Loghlin ; we are admitted to the Imperial Parliament which I, a Roman Catholic. have at present the honour of addressing; we are admitted to the Board of Admiralty, the Treasury, to the Board of Trade, and to the Privy . Council. But admitted as we are to the bench of jus tice—admitted to .the Senate—admitted to the Admi ralty, the Treasury, and the Board of Trade—admit ted as we are to the Privy Council of our Sovereign, we are excluded from the jury box. We are excluded from the jury box, which has afforded a refuge to Protestant ascendal!cy, and has thus become invested with the most odious form of that detestable do mination—(Cheers)—and yet the Noble Lord the Se cretary for Ireland perseveres in his professions, and tells us that he is exceedingly anxious for the adminis- tration of justice.—(Cheers.) At the last London election some person in the crowd asked Mr. Baring if he was for free trade. Oh, yes, said Mr. Baring, " I am for free trade in the abstract."—(A laugh.) " Will you vote for a repeal of the corn-laws?" asked the man. " Oh," replied Mr. Baring, " th at i s qu i te another thing."—(Cheers and laughter.) So the Noble Lord is for an impartial administration of justice in the abstract, but when he is asked will he admit Catholics into the jury box, he replies, " Oh, that is quite another thing."—(Loud cheering.) But it may be possibly from infirmity of purpose that the Noble Lord takes that course. Not so with Lord De Grey—(Loud cheers) against whom I have a most serious charge to make con nected with this trial; and I hbld in my hand the means of substantiating that charge. —(Hear, hear.) The House has - doubtless heard of the existence of an Asso ciation in Dublin, called the Protestant Operative Asso ciation. I allude to this Association—first, as illus trating the results of the policy of the present Govern ment ; and secondly, as illustrating the consequences of your sacerdotal institutions.—(Loud cheers.) I hold in my hand extracts from the debates of that society, some of which I will read to the House. Popery is denomi nated a God-destroying, Christ-blaspheming, Bible denying superstition.—(Cheers and laughter.) Now, this is from an address to the people of England. They denominate Popery gross idolatry, the monstrous pro geny of Satan, and the whole concludes with a panegyric upon the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—(Loud laughter)—whose arrival in Dublin, which was then expected, is stated as an event which every Irish Pro testant must contemplate with sentiments of gratitude. —(Cheers and laughter.) That Hon. Gentleman the other night read a speech which he attributed to me. He made a mistake ; that speech was not made by me, but by a cousin of mine residing in Cork, and it was made against me, for he said that if he did so and so he should be as bad as silk-gown Sheil.—(Cheers and laughter.) I asked him where he found the speech ; the Hon. Member showed it me in the " Annual Register." It was a mistake to attribute to me ; the Hon. Gentleman made the mistake, but I certainly acquit him of any intention to misrepre sent me.—(Cheers.) This Dublin Protestant Operative Association presented an address to Lord De Grey im mediately after the proclamation was issued. On the 13th October, the Dublin Operative Protestant Associa tion presented an address to Lord De Grey, in which, after speaking of the dispersion of the Clontarf meeting, they spoke of the sacrifice of the mass as a blasphemous fable—(Hear, hear)--dangerous to and destructive of Christianity—that the people of England had insisted upon the abolition of idolatry in India, and that it was necessary for the good of Ireland that a law should be made for the total abolition of Popery.—(Hear, hear.) Now that was an address presented to Lord De Grey at a great public crisis—at a time when the public mind was agitated to its profoundest depths. Now what was Lord De Grey's answer ?—(Hear, hear.) Did he denounce the insult thus offered to his fellow -country men, and, through them, to himself ? (Lond cheers.) When he came to Ireland, he said his Sovereign, when she had sent him there, had charged him to be careful of the interests of Ireland, for she was peculiarly solicitous for the welfare - of her Irish people.—(Loud cheers.) Now what was the answer which he, who had received so solemn a charge, and from whom the benevolent in tentions of his Sovereign should have been reflected — (Loud cheers)—what was the answer which he had re turned to that address ? I will read it :—"I have in command from his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of the address of the Dublin Operative Protestant Association, and his Excellency desires me to make known to those members of the As sociation who have signed it his warmest acknowledge ments—(lmmense cheering)—for their expression of their feelings of kindness and confidence."--(Cheers and counter cheers.) Now will the first Lord of the Trea sury justify the answer?—(lmmense cheering.) I need not repeat the question. I know that he will not.— (Loud cheers.) The Secretary of State for the Home Department will say that it was injudicious ; and as for Right which atheleeeNpo_bl(elmterndseopehpeoesirtieng(LaonrddleSutganhlteeyr); who is fast Lord Stanley roused hi mse lf and theboweddttioring lion. Gentleman)—l beg to hand him the documents to furnish materials fur his next "No Popery" speech.— (Immense cheering.) Now I have not said one word about the trials, and I shall say but little about them. I shall say but little of the charge of the Chief Justice, because I was the counsel " on the other side."—(Cheers.) One observation, however, I must make. The Noble Lord opposite remonstrated with us the other_ night on our want of decency —our want of respect to t_h B n e c s h e in venturing to attack the charge of a judge. Now those who heard the speech the other day are si e n re o , ipesro haps, aware that the Noble Lord who consi der ed t t. us ice, indecent in us to cast reflections on the Chief s e e h , e e a r n s . d ) voted himself r d denounced u inquiryn ced Bianrtoen his Smith For inquiry into a charge of Baron Smith's.—(Re newed cheering.) Lord STANLEY—Not for an inquiry info a chirge. Mr. SHEIL—You voted for a Committee to inquire in into a speech made from the Bench. con d t ( h is Lo u o d u Lord STANLEY—No. Mr. SHEIL—A motion was made in this House for a Committee to inquire into a charge delivered by Baron Smith from the bench to a valid jury of the county of Dublin.—(Cheers.) The Secretary of State for the Home Department will perhaps be able to tell him, for he voted against the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) He was shocked at the Noble Lord's conduct.(Cheers and laughter.) On that occasion the Noble Lord and the Secretary for the Home Department were divided.— (Cheers and laughter.) Only one star appeared on that occasion in the hemisphere.—(Cheers and laughter.) But let us pass from that to consider the moral effect of the verdict.—(Hear, h ear , an d cheers.) D o you expect any beneficial effects from that verdict?—(Loud cheers.) Why, the Home Secretary was, the other night, compelled to admit that there were circumstances connected with those trials that he considered matter of regret.—(Cheers.) Now, if there were circumstances which he regretted, he Grahamhe is down.—(Loud said cheers, might, I think, have s p ared the p hrase " convicted con spirators."—(Loud ch eers.) But even if the verdict would be untainted —he is an Englishm an , an d oug h t not during which to strike a Sir man James when something across the table which we co uld not catch.) W ell ! well ! per haps I ought not to h ave said so. At all events , say that the phrase " convicted con spirators " is an infelicitous expression, and that, in his cooler moments, the Right lion. Gentleman would wish he had not used it. Is the moral effect of the verdict likely to be increased by the s p ee ch of the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies.—(Cheers.) It was made some days ago, but it is worth rereembering.—(Cheers and counter cheers.) It will be remembered in Ireland—(Cheers, and counter cheers) —and it may be remembered in Canada.—(Opposition cheers,) N OW my Friend, Mr. Fonblanque, has very justly remarked, that every speech of the Noble Lord reminded oue of a buister made of very shining flies (Cheers.) And if the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Govern ment could only leave acted with his usual prudence, if he had told the. Noble Lord that Ire land did not now belong to his department, and that he would be acting more discreetly if he avoided touching on the subject he remembered the state of Canada, and how the feelingi ef the people of that province might be aroused by such topics—hot the Noble Lord could not deny himself the opportunity of giving us a somewhat pharasaical homily upon the Catholic oath, He read that as if he was reading from italics.'--(A laugh.) Such was his enhabia. e road it with the , Irt• TL 1' e , ' rF r 1 same emphasis as struck the mind when the type struck the eye with its larger or more impressive character.— (Hear, hear, hear )• Thus he read it ; and then he said we ought to search our consciences, and consider the solemn obligation that we owed to our country and our God.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (Stanley) said he did not mean to give me and others any offence. I accept his intention as he wishes us to take it, trusting he will do the same by mine. Suppose, then, as he has given me a lecture on p er j ur y, give kim one on political principle.—(Lo u d cries o f " H e ar, hear.') In answer to his advice to us I will pray him to avoid political tergiversation.—(Loud cheers.) I will warn him of the danger of playing the renegade for the sake of men with whom his political career can command but little confidence—and, above all, I bid him remember the ancient motto of his high and ho noured family—" Soyez tranquille."—(Cheers and great laughter.) Let him remember, and, if possible, act upon, that sound and judicious saying in the spirit of here ditary gratitude.—(Loud laughter.) As the Noble Lord gives me his warning as to perjury, in gratitude I tender him my admonition on apostacy.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord's advice and counsel is very gratuitous, and, as is usually the case when he proffers ii, not very judicious or applicable—(Hear, hear.)—but I will leave that to come to the more important question. —How is Ireland to be governed ? Is she to be go verned by verdicts and bayonets ?—(Cheers.) If you will require Protestant juries, Protestant churches, and Protestant ascendancy, then shall you require Protes tant bayonets to maintain them.—(Cheers.) Where are your specifics for Ireland—l ask you ? You have issued a Landlord and Tenant Commission, and you make a great boast about it. What will it do beyond telling us that which we all know already ?—(Hear, hear.) You suggest for one of your remedies that the questions of difference between landlord and tenant ,hall be removed from their present cheap and easy ad judication to the courts of quarter sessions. Take care what you do—take care how you interfere with the tribunal to which the people at pre sent appeal with confidence —take care how you meddle with Mr. Hensch. You may destroy his juris diction ; but in doing so you will not destroy discontent, but will aggravate it by increasing twenty-fold the ex penses in your insane intention of appeals to quarter sessions. —(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) told you he should have no objection in any future legislation on this subject for Ireland, to provide that where tenants are removed they shall have compen sation for any loss they may sustain. Now this is a question closely connected with registration. It has been pending these three years. Do you mean to give us the Chandos clause?—(Cheers.) If you mean to give us the tenant-at-will clause, I tell you, you will goad out the tenants of the country, and you will array them in one determined opposition to you.—(Hear, hear.) In peace you will hold them, in a debasing and dangerous vassal age—(Hear, hear)—and in the time of commotion where is the power that shall bind them to you ? (Loud cheers.) But, after all, the great question is the question of the two Churches in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) It is the question of the Church with the congregation and without the revenue—and the Church with all the revenue and without the congregation.—(Loud cheers.) What do you intend to do with your Church ? There you are silent.—(Loud cheers.) Then I tell you you you have no right to be silent on such a subject.—(Hear, hear.) The subject must have been the theme of your constant consideration. You must have some purpose, and whatever it is you ought totell it —you are bound to tell it.—(Loud cheers.) Will you grant glebes to our clergy ? I believe they will accept them if offered in a sincere and conciliatory spirit.—(Hear, hear.) Will you build Catholic churches ?—(Hear, hear.) Will you augment—really augment—your grant to Maynooth to something like a proportion to the great and sacred object it professes to have in view? You say you will do every thing that can reasonably be desired to conciliate and satisfy us, and all the while you are saying this you keep back the proof.—(Loud cheers.) But what course do you intend to pursue with respect to the Es tablished Church ? We are told you won't touch it. Why ? Is it because, as the Right Hon. Recorder for Dublin says, " your Church contains in its own and sole bosom the religious truth."—(Loud laughter and cheers.) Pray, in which portion of your Protestant Church is the religious truth" embosomed ? Is it in the Church on the north side of the Tweed, or the Church on the south side of the Tweed.—(Tremendous cheers and laughter.) On the north side of the Tweed the " re ligious truth" is Calvinistic—on the south side it is Armenian •, on the north it is represented bhe Right Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Fox Maule)-on the south by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) ; on the north you can recognise " the religious truth" by the plaia black surplice—on the south by the crozier and the mitre-head ; on the north you claim alliance with Geneva—on the south you show a strong family likeness to that celebrated Baby lonian lady who, under the auspices of Pusey, may yet restore you to the ancient pathway of your fathers.— (Great cheering.) But on which side of the Tweed again I ask you will you take your stand ?—(Great cheering.) I ask my Lord Advocate (Mr. Duncan M'Neil) on which side is the truth ? No answer. Well, perhaps, as the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir James Graham) is a Borderer, he will tell me.—(Shouts of laughter, and applause.) In vain, then, do I ask where I am to search for the truth.—(Cheers.) At all events, whatever the truth may be, your Protestant is not greatly disposed to extend it, but rather prefers to keep it to himself—whilst my Church, from its very rise, has extended itself in every clime and in every region. —(Hear, hear.) You keep your Church in a short of ecclesiastical conserva tory, where, by artificial moans, you fondle and foster it into streugth, no—into weakness; when, by more ro bust and vigorous treatment, you might give to it a tulness, freshness, and vitality you little dream of. — (Loud cheers.) But I will dwell ne longer on the truth of creeds. I will put the question aside. Can you make the Church consistent with principle ? You say you cannot, but I will show you that you can. What have you done with respect to the clergy in Ca dada ? The clergy of Canada were, by Act of Parlia ment, provided with an appropriation—but this appro priation was confined to the Protestant religion. Before the rebellion in Canada, effort after effort was made for the purpose of procuring a better and more national ap plication of the clergy reserves. Until the'revolt—that fatal means by which statesmen are to be taught—until the revolt, every effort to apply the elergy reseves in a more judicious manner was made, but in vain. At length you consented to make an appropriation, and to depart from the Act of Parliament—the fundamental Act of Parliament. The Archbishop of Canterbury came down and said that he deeply felt the necessity of making that change. The Bishop of London said the same thing, and the only man that stood firm to his principles was the Bishop of Exeter—(Laughter)—who said that he objected to the change, because he saw that the Irish Papists would take advantage of it. He was right. The inference was irresistible. You take away a portion of the clergy reserves in Canada from the Protestant clergy, and you give it to the Catholic priesthood ; and at this moment—(here Sir James Graham made some observation across the table which we could not hear)—you do appropriate an amount e th Y e l) Lwi u h i Its_ s o p a oaooa v orrbb b p e nddll e pese ttl g ohaLi La: ePoasotpP hbrrsea l i ddulor e e —wsrbkoj d et ennotlme t uo o ttbrewh. sne oetsg t h h pf:har e tpaoti supportpardon dotovthe ed %Tfoo roor Noble fora ee the eLn tgo C u rradnt such aonl (Lordi d e a n e l g l s e du r tea g argyn y el te royot r ffi i owt c nhe e — 7Ol. cf aT thetchha The clergy lci clergyele on cr lge t yr h gr e ye reserves e T o r vbh reservesel ees py gth em n r o fee e i n p u t o t were applied to the payment of debts contracted on the faith of the Crown. Part of those debts are payments struck odu not struck to the Catholic cl erg y. —(Ch eers. ) Th e N o bl e L or d w ill not deny it. No w , th en , h ow i ncons i stent i s your con duct with respect t o t h e I r i s h P rotes t an t s . Y ou offi abolishco church-rates r c e h itg - h r he a t t e s pb se ill! u n odi ecss — lreland ioff y ; otuh e but e du people. bishoprics. why did you not re d uce some o f t h e b ene - ' fices ? If th ere were too many bi s h opr i cs, o f course there were too m an y b ene fi ces . —(H ear .) I n 1838 you commuted the tithes. Th e R oman C at h o li c M em b ers cd you d You did not then ask you to confiscate a single farthing. They asked you to apply the surplus to charitable pur poses—they asked for nothing else. You refused. The Bill was carried by the Whigs but proposed by the Tories. The Gallant Officer, who was then the Se cretary for Ireland—and it should be a Gallant Officer that you ought now to make Secretary for Ireland— (Cheers)—that Gallant Officer proposed a Bill by which one quarter of the tithes would have been confiscated. But no, you put it into the pockets of the landlords ; but why could you not have applied it to charitable pur poses ? You could not have applied the tithes to edu cation. No, you took one quarter from the Church, and put it into the pockets of the landlords. In England, where you have an Established Church, you teach the religion of the people. You gave up the Factory Bill, and you perpetuated ignorance rather than infringe on the prerogative of the Establishment, whilst in Ireland you declare that the Church has no such prerogative. You have stripped the Church of Ireland of the privi lege conferred upon the Church in this country, and you have declared that she is not fit to have the tutorage of the national mind. The state of the Church in Ireland is unexampled by any Church in any country in Europe. Yes, there was one, that was in Poland. The Emperor had issued his ukases, in which he states that Poland is for ever to be united to All the Russias. In these he ex pressed his hope that the fanciful grievances of the Poles would be done away. and he expresses his astonishment that his benevolent feelings are not appreciated ; and he says that the establishment of the Greek Church will be an excellent bond of connection between the two coun tries. The Greek hierarchy was to supply the absence of the Polish nobility. We have an almost annual debate with respect to the grievances of the Poles. The Right Hon. Baronet has often declared his wish to pro cure a mitigation of the sufferings of that very interesting nation. But I cannot help thinking that if my Lord Aberdeen were to consult Nesselrode on the subject, he would immediately say " What is your example with respect to Ireland ?" Since I have spoken of Lord Aberdeen, I must take the opportunity 9f e x pres s i ng m y unbounded admiration of his foreign policy.—(Laughter.) So long as the Home Secretary shows a belligerent in tention with respect to Ireland, so long does it become Lord Aberdeen to show a mild behaviour and humility ; Rightly do you recognise the possession of Algiers— rightly do you look quietly on the state of Spain— rightly will you sacrifice the treaties of 1831 and 1833, by which the slave-trade was to be suppressed, You say we will rule upon the fidelity of international friendship, and we will obtain peace by the interchange of mere Royal courtesies. You say that you will confide in the permanence of the throne of the barricades, which has no foundation in legitimacy on the one hand or prop of liberty on the other ; --(Cheers. ThP l'll4Y Mlle When the Right lion. Baronet may have reason to attend to the admonition of the Noble Lord the Member fob' Sunderland, when belerefied tO the speech made on Catholic emancipation, to which the Hun, ag o Learaed Member fer Worcester has called attention. These are perilous topics.—(l.lear, hear.) My conviction is, that if England were to stretch forth her gigantic arm, she would crush, as I trust in God she will crush, every in surrectionary movement in Ireland. If any such move ment frantic Ireland should be induced to take, what a fearful cost of treasure, and, what is infinitely more valuable than treasure—human life would be requ;red before treason could be subdued ! Well might the Duke of Wellington— well might the Hero of a hundred battles, have expressed his horror of a civil war. Civil war in Ireland would be be worse than civil war. The demon would have pos session of the nation's heart—the sentiments of hu manity would be excluded from the hearts of her children. The country would be de luged in blood, and when that deluge had subsided it would be but a sorry consolation to - the statesman to contemplate that scene of desolation, and to see the spires of the Establishment still stand ing secure amidst the desolation and solitude that would surround them.—(Loud cheers.) You adjure me on my oath—l swear by the Gospels of God. I adjure you, by every precept contained in these Gospels—in the name of every obligation, divine and human—as men and as Christians, to save your country from the calamities to which I point—to lay aside the spirit of partisanship, and not to permit Ireland to be involved in crime. If you do, the verdict of posterity will be against you; and you will be answerable, not only to your country but to that Judge in whose presence, covered with the blood of civil war fare, it will be more than dreadful to appear. But, Sir, lam not without hope for my country. I trust that Ireland will cease to be what she now is, the arena of fac tion—that animosities will be laid aside, and that we may at length, in common, offer up a fervent prayer to the King of Kings for its speedy regeneration.—(Loud cheers.) I have witnessed, within the last few days, since my return to this country, enough to convince me that the great mass of the community aro influenced by kindly feelings towards Ireland.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from both sides of the House.) I have heard the most admirable sentiments expressed by gentlemen connected with the present Government by official ties, and by those of friendship. I have also seen that Englishmen— noble, high-minded Englishmen—can with generous promptitude forgive the man who might be supposed to have done them wrong, and, even upon the mere con jecture that he might have been injured, rush to give him succour.—(Loud cries of Hear.") That this feeling may be appreciated by in`Y countrymen is my most sincere wish—that it may be the means of gradually producing a national- reconciliation, and not only a union between the two countries by such slender ligaments as an Act of Parliament may supply—but that the two countries may be socially, politically, morally, and affectionately united, is the prayer of one who is conscious of many imperfections, but who never was, and never will be, indifferent to the interests of his country, to which he is devotedly attached, And who, so far from desiring the dismemberment of the empire, offers up a prayer as fervent as ever passed from the lips of any of you—that the greatness and power of this mighty empire may be imperishable, and that the glory, the independence, and the liberty of Englishmen may endure for ever! (The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amid loud and vehement cheering, which lasted for several minutes.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the adjourn ment of the debate, which was agreed to. . _ The House then adjourned at a Quarter to One o'Clock. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 29. Lord Denman sat at nisi.prius at the Guildhall this morn ing, with a London common jury, and disposed of two cases, neither of which were of any interest, except to the persons immediately concerned. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 22. (Before Chief Justice TINDAL.) FRASER V. BAGLEY.—CELV. CON. The evidence on the part of the defendant was proceeded with at the opening of the Court this morning. Dr. Smith was called, and examined by Mr. Wonnswonnt —The witness proved he knew Mr. Fraser, and that it was at his house Mr. Fraser first met Miss Simmons. He once dined with Mr. Fraser at his chambers, and supped with him twice. He saw a lady named Dalgleish with him, to whom Mr: Fraser paid more attention than he (witness) thought proper. He also saw the Arnolds with him. Sophia Dalgleish, examined by Mr. CnasinEns—l reside with my father in Park-road Cottage. I was introduced to Mr. Fraser. I bad then two married sisters. It was in 1840. I was at that time engaged to be married. Mr. Fraser visited me with Mr. Fitzjames at our house. They became acquainted through me with my sister. The engagement between me and Mr. Wapping, to whom I was engaged, was broken off. Mr. Fraser was introduced to us as a married man. My mother made inquiries after Mrs. Fraser. We wished to be introduced to her. Mr. Fraser said she resided in the country, and scarcely ever came to town. He said her little boy was in very delicate health. The acquaintance be tween Mr. Fraser and our family continued about two years ; he always said his wife was in the country. Cross-examined by Mr. TnEstornt—l first told what I knew of this subject to Mr. Shaw, about three weeks ago; I told it to my acquaintance generally. Re-examined by Mr. Crwinuns—When I first saw Mr. Fraser he behaved in a manner that I did not approve ; he treated me as a child, and kissed me once in the hall. I told him not to do it again. After that his conduct was very gentlemanly, and I had nothing to complain of. Mrs. Ann Richards examined by Mr. Woupsw-oirerre—l lived with Mr. Fraser in the King's bench-walk. I often saw Mr. Bagley with him. They were very great friends. There were various ladies coming to Mr. Fraser. I saw a Miss Simmons there. I cannot say whether she was there once, twice, or thrice. I recollect on one occasion he had two ladies with him. He sent one away in a cab, and the other remained. I saw Miss Arnold there. Her father brought her two or three times, and left her with Mr. Fraser. She dined and took tea with Mr. Fraser, and used to go out about eleven o'clock. I recollect on one occasion Miss Arnold and her brother came to Mr. Fraser's about seven o'clock in the morning. They breakfasted together and went off to the South Sea House, where Mr. Arnold had a situation. Some time after Miss Arnold came in a cab with two other ladies. Mr. Fraser was not at home. They had a dispute with the cabman. I know Mrs. Fraser. She came on one occasion to the chambers of Mr. Fraser to have a cheque changed. Mr. Fraser was not at home. She then went to Mr. Bagley's chambers. I went to get the cheque changed. I met Mr. Bagley, and told him Mrs. Fraser was there. He did not go in. On another occasion Mrs. Fraser came to the chambers of Mr. Fraser. She appeared to be in a disturbed state of mind. She searched the chambers. I went down and told Mr. Bagley. He came up and remonstrated with her, and told her that she ought not to do so. Mrs. Lillywhite examined by Mr. CIIAMBERS—I was in the service of Mr. Arnold, of the South Sea House. I know Mr. Fraser. One of the Misses Arnold was abroad. While she was abroad there was a Miss Simmons at the South Sea House. She was there about a year and seven months. Mr. Fraser brought Miss Arnold home. They came in the even ing. Mr. Fraser paid Miss Simmons every attention, and took her to several places of amusement. Sometimes he took Miss Arnold and Miss Simmons together. Miss Arnold was not in such good spirits a short time after she came from Germany as slie was when she first came. On one occasion she was in hysterics from eleven till five o'clock ; she called out the name of Fraser several times. I recollect a note being brought by Mr. Fraser's clerk to Miss Simmons. Miss Simmons went out in the course of the evening. After that Miss Arnold got ill ; I was sent away. About a fortnight afterwards I was sent for; there was no servant kept while I was away. Preparations were made to take Miss Arnold down to Devonshire. Mr. Fraser knew of those preparations. On another occasion she went to Read ing. I delivered several notes to Miss Arnold which I received from Mr. Fraser's clerk. He sent some jewellery to Miss Simmons and Miss Arnold. Mr. Fraser used to remain very late. He slept at the house several times when Miss Arnold was there. Miss Simmonds did not sleep with her. Miss Arnold and Mr. Fraser used to breakfast together when Mr. Fraser slept in the house. I recollect on one occasion going into the drawing-room to light the fire ; it was between seven and eight o'clock. Mr. Fraser slept in the drawing-room. Miss Arnold slept in a room off the drawing-room. When I went in Mr. Fraser was in the drawing-room. While lighting the fire Miss Arnold came in. She was not dressed .; she had her night-dress and a shawl on. It was the dress she slept in. I remarked, on one occasion, that Mr. Fraser had better live in the house altogether ; he was coming so often. Mr. Fraser used to take her out for an entire day. I heard him say, on one occasion, he was taking her to his sister's. He used call Miss Arnold Eliza. She used to let Mr. Fraser out of the house when lie remained late. I left the Arnolds in February, 1842. I left to be married. Cross •examined by Mr. TuEsmEn—There were about ten rooms in the house. Mr. Arnold's family lived in the house. I slept in a room near the kitchen. I married last November twelve months. My husband is a carpenter and wholesale cheesemonger. We live in Cecil-court, St. Martin's-lane. Miss Arnold went to Reading in 1841, in the summer. It was after she came from Exeter that she went to Reading. I was in the service of the Arnolds about twoyears, when Miss Arnold came from abroad. I went into the service of the Arnolds in 1839. Miss Arnold remained 12 months in Exe ter. To the best of my recollection it was in 1841 she Went to Exeter. Mr. Shaw called upon me about this ma tt er . A lady called upon me. I don't know who she was. She asked where Miss Simmons was. That was all. I told Mr. Shaw about what I saw in the drawing-room. The lady who called was a respectable person. I did not receive any thing. I was promised nothing. Mr. Bishop, who acted as solicitor of Mr. Fraser in 1841, with regard to the bill of sale referred to by Mr. White in his evidence yesterday, proved that Mr. Fraser requested Mr. Bagley to ice to Mrs. Fraser to reconcile her to the step. Mrs. Fraser called at my office five or six times. She always in quired after her husband, and complained to witness of his absence from her, and his associating with others. She asked witness for the address of Mr. Fraser. Witness did not give the address, because he had directions to that effect from Mr. Fraser. On one occasion, in 1849, Mrs. Fraser called at witness's office with some shirts belonging to Mr. Fraser. Mr. and Mrs. Fraser met on one occasion at my office. Mr. Fresco , was living at Stamford-street then. I had a conversation in 1840 with Mr. Fraser respecting Miss Simmons. I was introduced to her et Mr. Fraser's chambers. There was an aPpQintment made that a meeting should take place at his offices between Mr. Fraser and a Mr. Bennett, a professor of music. They met and an agreement Wee come to that Mr. Bennett should be paid down 1001., and receive 50/. a-y ear , for three years on the consideration of his t eac hi ng Mi ss Simmons music and singing. The 1001, was aid down, I think it was paid by Mr. Fraser. Mr. Arnold was there also. A note was given for the first instalment. When it became due it was paid. '4' second instalment was not paid. Mr. Fraser Caine to witness to have the agreement ceneelled, anne stated as his reason that the lady was in the family way, and also that he was not in circumstances to pay the money. I saw Miss Si ;none after, She was in the family way. She was at the house of a Mrs. Birch, in Henri etta-atleet, Aleruietfwits then called, and corrohornted the last wit ness. After she was some time with me I perceived she was in a state of pregnancy. Mr. Birch, siravined by Mr. Wanynwoßzu — l live at Yo. 12, Henrietta-street. A Miss Simmons Cinnf : ihe Bth of June, 1841. She appear (1 to be W4l4lfitrAY Way. She was very large. She was there about a year a half. Mary Anne Touse, examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—I lived in 1841 at Exeter with my mother, who is a confectioner. Mr. Fraser used to live there during sessions and assizes. He had a sitting-room and a bed-room. A Miss Arnold used to visit him. She came very often. He used to call her Eliza - and Miss Arnold. She used to come every day. She used to lunch and dine with him every evening. She used to re main till ten or eleven o'clock. There was a sofa in the sitting room. He used to come every sessions and assizes. Cross-examined by Mr. Tut:smelt—Before I came here, I saw Mr. Shaw and a lady. The lady was respectably dressed. Thomas Greatwood examined—l am a crier in the Queen's Bench Prison. I was: formerly a messenger for prisoners. I.know Mr. Fraser. I knew him in the summer of 1839, when in the Queen's Bench. He had two rooms. On one occasion he gave me a letter to take to a Miss Edwards, of Pimlico. He described her to me as a dark-looking person. I went two days for her before I could find her. I saw her at last, and gave her the letter. It was arranged that she was to meet me outside the prison at ten o'clock in the morning, and I was to take her in. She I c e a f n t t i e n t a o h ea e b r a a p b p o a o i t n e t t, (), a c t l i o d ek l t o o s k h e h e c r a u t eMatg.. again a i s i e e r x . S d h a y e about eleven o'clock, and left about nine. She came again the third day. The prison is open for females till ten o'clock during term time. It is closed earlier in vacation. Miss Edwards used to come constantly. When Mr. Fraser left the prison I went to him with some pickles I had for sale. I know a person named Maria Serle. She waited on Mr. Fraser and Miss Edwards. MaSrariaaseh S o p e ic c e o r m e i x n a g n t i o in m ed y — h l live oltae re with al e a n d l y v , ic a h. a 3. gentleman. It It was in 1839. They passed under the name of Mr. And Mrs. Hunt. I afterwards heard the gentleman was called Yraser, and the lady was called Edwards. Mr. Broughton, the Police Magistrate, examined—l am re lated to Mrs. Fraser. I knew Mr. and Mrs. Fraser after their marriage. We were on intimate terms, and lived near each other in Melcombe-place. Mrs. Broughton was in the habit of going to see Mrs. Fraser. They were not at all living hap pily together. Both parties made complaints. Constant complaints were made by Mrs. Fraser. I saw Mr. Fraser on one or two occasions on the subject of those complaints. I told Mr. Fraser that Mrs. Fraser complained of general neg lect on his part, absence from home, and waste of money ; of his returning home at late hours, and that it was the firm conviction of Mrs. Fraser that he was spending his money upon a Miss Arnold. Mr. Fraser said she worried him to death with her jealousy, and often made -his home uncomfortable. He said it was his professional avocations which made it necessary for him to be so mulch absent from home. he denied having any criminal intercourse with Miss Ar nold, and on another occasion he most solemnly assured him that he had never been alone in a room with Miss Arnold. I had. many conversations with Mr. Fraser on the subject of his pecuniary difficulties. He always said he would get over them, and said that he was involved by other persons. I met Mr. Bagley at Mr. Fraser's. After Mr. Fraser had left his wife, he called upon me very frequently. He expressed a wish to see his children on one occasion. Mrs. Fraser had no objection that he should see them. He made no arrangements as to the time and place at which he would see them. There On was no concealment of the residence of ( lsim h .ll l ie l a, r p s o . raop l nrp ' id r r ie a yti bya r o . ufrotafwvt i t iihnna h iggg e s 2 oz o casi i. fornamofhlVialrw. wife, e a r ag g g o e i s n t g ed o to ut to not wif his e l . eav H e e . sa l i l d e h s e a a id ,aui h d e c w on o s u it l i d er se o e n h t t e children, pr to her. He never saw any impropriety of conduct on the part of the wife. Cross-examined by Mr. Hummuter—Mr. Fraser often complained of his wife speaking ill of him. He desired me to ask his wife to withdraw the charge she made against him with regard to his connexion with Miss Arnold. When I used the word " criminality," I meant to shadow forth the nature of the charge against Mr. Fraser, but I don't re collect the word to have been used either by Mrs. Fraser, in complaining of her husband, or by the husband in defending himself from the charge. Mr. Fraser complained that his wife treated some of his friends uncivilly. I remonstrated with her. I don't know anything of Mr. Fraser's family I believe he has a sister. I addressed letters to a Miss Frlser in Camden Villa. Mr. Stewart, Q.C., examined—l have known Mr. Fraser foi several years. I interfered to procure money for him to go to India. There were some doubts as to the sincerity of his intention to go to India. I told him that if he satisfied me with regard to those doubts, I would write to Mr. White to get the 200/. for him. He pledged his honour that he would go, and I had then no reason to doubt him. Mr. James was called, and proved that Mr. Fraser called at his office in Basinghall-street with regard to his going to India, and that he had instructions from Mr. Cockburn, under a certain agreement to which Mr. Fraser was a party. He said he had nothing to do but to surrender. He did not surrender. Mr. Hussey was called, and proved that the girl Maria Searle had been subpoenaed; that she was in attendance on Monday ; that he accompanied her to Greenwich, but she was not to be found on Tuesday morning. Every exertion had been made to find her out. Mr. Ballard, formerly a Bow-street Officer, proved that he made every exertion to find out where Maria Searle was, but had not been able. A balance-sheet was put in showing the state of Mr. Fraser's affairs. It appeared from it that he owed 2,300/., and had property to the amount of only 300/. Several letters from Mr. Fraser to Mr. Bagley were put in and read. The letters showed that a close intimacy ex isted between Mr. Fraser and Mr. Bagley. Mr. CHAMBERS said that this was the case for the defence. The following witnesses were then called on the part of the plaintiff, with reference to the new matter disclosed in the evidence on the part of the defence : Dr. Samuel Ashwell, Lecturer on Midwifery at Guy's Hospital—l examined Miss Arnold by desire of herfather, at the South Sea House, yesterday, with a view of ascer taining whether she was a virgin or not. I should say she never had a child, and that she is a virgin. That is my de cided opinion ; it is as decided an opinion as any person could give. Cross-examined by Mr. CilloinEns—l examined her about eleven o'clock last night. I should say there ought to be little difficulty on the part of a competent examiner in ascertaining the fact. The witness was examined at some length, but owing to the nature of the subject, we are pre cluded from giving the examination. Edmund Arnold examined.---I am the son of Mr. Arnold of the South Sea House. He has two sons and two daughters. Mr. Fraser was in the habit of visiting there. I was in the habit of going with my sister to Mr. Fraser's chambers. Miss Simmons used to reside at my father's. She was there about twelve months. I am 24 years of age. I asi a medical man. There was an intimacy formed between myself and Miss Simmons. I will not call it an attachment. I have every reason to believe she was in the family way by me. She left in June or July and went to Mr. Birch's. She after that visitedme at Kennington. It was known to my family that she was in the family way by me about two months after it had taken place.. Cross-examined by Mr. CiumßEßs—l am a medica/ student. My sister is now nineteen years old. I saw Mr. Fraser now; I came from him into the witness-box. I read the account of these proceedings in the newspapers. I did not see Miss Simmons since it was known by my family that she was in the family way. I heard she had a child ; the child died. I don't recollect going to Mr. Fraser on one occasion about seven o'clock ; 1 went on one occasion with her to Mr. Fraser, after a journey. I met my sister at Exeter. She was there about nine months. We met Mr. Fraser at Bath. We came to Mr. Fraser on Mon day. Mr. Fraser paid the bill at the hotel in Bath. Ido not know who paid the fare coming up. I went down for the purpose of fetching my sister. She was at school in Exeter. Some time before this trial my sister was living with a Mr. Davis, of Chiswick, for eight or nine weeks, Mr. Davis, is a solicitor. I was not aware that this action was brought when she went to Mr. Davis. She was li v i ng a t home be fore this. She went to Mr. Davis as a governess. I went to see Mrs. Lillywhite. Reference was made to my sister. I have an elder brother who is a merchant in America. I recollect when my sister came from Bonn. Mr. Fraser brought her home. I heard they remained a night at Dover. Mr. Fraser visited the South Sea House for two or three months be fore my sister came home. I saw my sister in hy sterics. She had hysterics in December, and went to Exeter in January. She had always delicate health. On one occasion, there was an excursion to the Isle of Wight ; Mr. Fraser and my sister came up to town in the morning, and returned the next day to Exeter. Since then she went on a visit to Lincolnshire with a clergyman and his lady in 1843. They are friends of the family. Re-examined by Mr. HUMPIIREY—I went to Mrs. Lilly white to know whether she heard the reports with regard to my sister. (The letter intimating the pregnancy lor Miss Simmons, was handed in; it was dated Oct. 13, 1843.) Miss Eliza Arnold sworn and examined by Mr. TREMGER —I am daughter of Mr. Arnold, of the South Sea House. I know Mr. Fraser. I never had any intercourse with bim. I saw Dr. Ashwell yesterday. Cross-examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—I was at school at Bonn. I recollect coming away from it. I went to Cologne from Bonn, and then to rankfort. Mr. Fraser and Mr. Fits james, and a Miss Chennell went with me to Frankfort. I did not know Miss Chennell. I slept by myself. Miss Chennell slept opposite to me. I slept once with Miss Chennell. I went back to Bonn from Frankfort. I spent the afternoon with a friend. Miss Chennell was left at Frank fort. I did not see Miss Chennell any more. 'We next went to Bruges, I slept there one night. I went to Aix-la-Chapelle, to Brussels, 'end thence to Boulogne. I always stopped- at the inns. I stayed two days at Brussels. I do not know the name of the inn. We crossed to Dover from Boulogne. 'We stopped at the " Ship : " I only had one meal there. I went to see my sister, who was at school in Dover. I do not recollect when we dined. It was late. I went to bed about nine o'clock. I think I left Mr. Fraser and Mr. Fitzjaines in the sitting-room. We had some wine at dinner. I don't think I took any. I do not recollect being disturbed that night in any way. I think Mr. Fraser knocked at the door in the morning. He said it was time to get up. We came to London by the coach. I think papa met me at Gracechurch-street, where we stopped. Mr. Fraser, I think, spent the evening at our house that night. He used to visit us frequently. After that he went down to Exeter with mamma and me. I was ill before I left. Dr. Bee visited me. I think Mr. Fraser and mamma left Exe ter to go there. My family used to come to see me. I saw Mr. Fraser there afterwards. He lodged at a pastrycook's. My brother fetched me when I came away last. I was in Exeter about nine months. We met Mr. Fraser in Bath. We came up together. I don't recollect breakfasting at Mr. Fra ser'ichambers. I never breakfasted at Mr. Fraser's chambers. I think I took supper once there. I had refreshments there sometimes. I was there once alone when I was coming from Mr. Fraser's sister's. I do not know what time it was. I went several times with papa and mamma and Miss Sim mons there. Mr. Fraser said he wanted to speak privately with Miss Simmons. I was put into another room. That was the only time I went with Miss Simmons. It has been mentioned to me that I used a name when I had a fit of hysterics. I believe Mr. Fraser took me to Southampton. I went into society with Mr. Fraser accompanied by a mar ried lady. I don't like to mention her name. I corresponded with Mr. Fraser. I recollect I gave a bonnet to Mr. Fraser to keep for me, because I could not wear it. I don't re member ever being alone with Mr. Fraser at his lodgings in Exeter. I was there once when my brother was in the town. It was in the evening. I was about an hour with him. I don't recollect being in his lodgings at any other time. • I will not swear that I was not there. There was a sofa in Mr. Fraser's room. I saw Mr. Fraser yesterday, at a window opposite where I had been waiting. I had not see him since November till then. When Mr. I reser took leave of me he made me a present of two rosettes of ribbon. He made me presents of trinkets be fore, I Saw a portrait of Mr. Fraser. I had it for som e tun e. It was brought down to Exeter. I gave it to my father 11) give r. It back to Mr. Fraser. I was never in a shop with Fr aser . My parents were aware that Mr. Frase ea an while I me presents. Mr. Fraser was Y When Mr. Fitzjames was. Mr Them:or-- was in Exeter. Mr. Fraser Re-examined by . w that he was a married man. I a f a th e had four children. He ilnVeGroermde:moyuthho.rdlodin did not .IL:11:bot o u u g ti a a h fl o y n - e to f g o e r th m e a. r. afterwards - „ car : kat going to the West Indies. I wan attorney of Monday. Dr. Bagley, and I have been Dr. Ashwell identified the witness as the person whom be had examined. Mr. Arnold examined—l am chief accountant in the Boistk : Yj ii t e b r e e i a n n subpoenaed t h t 0 d ' az a D n ob. S IT N ) 1:-Iii•*4= 'rtc)t.p_- f,"1.:,.. 0 ti R ~ ` ~. -