The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-22 00:00:00

STRIKING OF JURIES IN IRELAND.

On the motion that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of Supply,
Mr. KEOGH rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had given notice two months ago. If he felt
doubtful before as to the course he should pursue, the
circumstance which had „occurred that day made him
still more doubtful.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Go-
vernment had been in office for more than two years, and
in the present session the House of Commons had as•
canted to two measures of coercion against the people of
Ireland. He was nut then going to make any remarks on
the propriety or impropriety of the motion of which the
Noble Lord had given notice; but it increased the re-
sponsibility of any Member who had to submit a motion
respecting Ireland, that her Majesty's Government
found the country in such a condition that they could
not be answerable for its peace except by a temporary,
though a long, suspension of the constitution of the
realm.—(Hear.) He persisted in his determination to
bring the motion forward, because if her Majesty's Go•
vernment were able to give a satisfactory explanation of
the facts he was about to submit to the House, it would
go far to enlist public opinion in favour of the course
they had pursued and were going to pursue, and would
satisfy the minds of moderate thinking men in Ireland,
whose opinions, he must say, had been strongly estranged
from her Majesty's Government by reason of the course
they pursued in reference to the late trials in that coun-
try. It might be said, that if anything had been out of
the usual course, it was done against an atrocious crimi-
nal. But he apprehended that the Noble Lord would not
say, that even the most atrocious criminal was not en-
titled to a fair and impartial trial. The insult that had
been offered to the Roman Catholic population was ag-
gravated by the circumstances in which that criminal
was involved, for it showed, however clear the case
against him, that the Roman Catholic population of Ire-
land were considered as unworthy to be trusted even when
acting under the solemn obligation of an oath. The
mode of selecting juries was theoretically the same in
Ireland as in England, the law under which they were
chosen being the same, namely, the 3d
and 4th of William IV. But he was prepared
to prove that in every transaction connected with the
case of John Mitchel, now a convict in Bermuda, from
the original selection of the panel to the time of trial in
the box, there had been a gross invasion of the due ad-
ministration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) A.nd, first of all,
he begged to call the attention of the House to the fact
that in Ireland the sheriff, who was appointed by the
Crown, had the striking of the jury list. The practice
was different in this country, and particularly in the
city of London. The names of those who were qualified
to act as jurors were collected in a book called the
jurors' book for the city of Dublin. It so happened
that the jurors' book for the present year contained
4,570 names. Of these 2,965 were Roman Catholics,
and 1,635 were Protestants. There were therefore more
than two Roman Catholics for every Protestant in the
jurors' book. From that book it was the duty of the
sheriff to select such a number of names as would be
sufficient to try all the offenders during the commis-
sion. In this particular case the sheriffselected 150 names,
which selection was made by the sheriff personally, and
not by ballot; and it followed that more than 4to 1
of the jurors selected were Protestants. There was
something very singular about this. By the Act of Par-
liament, the sheriff, when he selected the panel, was
bound to sign it, and the summonser was obliged to
summon the jury six days before the trial. Now the
trial of Mr. Mitchel took place on the 20th. Some jurors
were summoned on the 11th, some on the 13th, and
when those summoned on the last day came into court
it was found that they were not on the panel for Mr.
Mitchel's trial at all. Now it was on the 13th that
Mitchel was arrested, and the inference, therefore was,
that either a new panel had been substituted, or the
sheriff had not signed that from which the jurors were
selected.—(llear, hear.) Upon Mitchell's trial a state-
ment was made by counsel in open court, which he was
bound to say would have its due weight in this
country. It was said, openly and unreservedly,
that the brother of the Attorney-General for
Ireland, who acted as clerk, had tampered
with the lists. The high sheriff was examined as to the
preparation of the panel. His answers were anything
but satisfactory. He said, to the best of his belief, it
was regularly prepared, that it was prepared before the
13th, and that it was all prepared in one day. But the
under-sheriff, in his examination, contradicted all this.
That gentleman said that he prepared the lists, and that
its preparation occupied him two days.
Two gentle-
men were selected to inquire whether the jurors were
fairly chosen or not. They decided that they were, and
the sheriff further stated that they were selected for their
superi,e. wealth and respectability. Well, what followed?
It turned out that of the whole 150 on the panel oiily
28 were Roman Catholics ; that, in the first 78 names
only four were of that faith, and that all the rest were
put at the bottom of the lists.—(Hear, hear.) But it
would be said that this was accidental, and that the
sheriff's impartiality was not impugned. He would,
however, state a fact which would prove that the
arrangement could not have been accidental, or
as some alleged alphabetical. There were two
jurors in Dublin, named Moore, both resident in
the same street, carrying on the same business, and
being of equal respectability. One was a Protestant,
the other was a Catholic. The name of the Protestant
Moore was 12th on the list, that of the Roman Catholic
Moore was placed No.' 122. How differently were not
things conducted in England? On the trial of Frost, it
having been noticed that a panel was arranged alphabe-
tically, objection was taken to it, not as being evidence
of partiality, but as being unusual. Lord Campbell,
who appeared fur the Crown, acquiesced in the objocton,
and the names were put into a ballot box and drawn by I
lot. Very different was the conduct of the Irish Attor-
ney-General upon the trial of Mr. Mitchel, Unlike

Lord Campbell, he made no attempt to restore the ba-
lance. On the contrary, having and exercising the right
of peremptory ceallenge, he challenged, out of 71 jurors
who attended, no less than 39, of whom 18
were Roman Catholics, and they were the only
Roman Catholics who answered to their names.
Let him observe, in passing, that this right
of peremptory challenge was a very arbitrary
one. It was condemned by Sir Michael O'Loghlen in
evidence before the House of Lords in 1839. That cele-
brated lawyer even declared that he did not believe it
was the law of the land; and certainly, in no case in
modern times had the privilege ever been exercised to
the same extent as in the case of Mitchel. The conduct
of the Irish Attorney-General was, indeed, only equal
to taking up the panel and selecting his ownjury. What
reason—what excuse—could be assign for such a pro-
ceeding? When out of office there was nothing that the
present Government so much impressed on the public
as the importance of a fair and impartial administration
of justice in Ireland. In 1836 Sir M. O'Loghlen, when
Attorney-General in Ireland, impressed upon the
Crown solicitors the importance of not pressing this
prerogative of peremptory challenge, and stated to
them that such practice was not pursued in England.
The present Lord Chancellor Brady gave similar direc-
tions. He even went so far as to say that the Crown
had not the right of peremptory challenge. The Hon.
and Learned Member proceeded to quote from the evi-
dence of Sir M. O'Loghlen and Judge Perri❑ before a
Committee of the House of Lords, in which both autho-
rities strongly disapproved of the indiscriminate exercise
of the right of challenge by the Crown. He (Mr.
Keogh) was not anxious that partisans on any side
should be chosen, but he asked the Government to give
one sufficient reason why those eighteen Roman Catho-
lics had been set aside. He had made every inquiry, and
he was prepared to state that ten out of the eighteen
were totally unconnected with political associations of
any kind.—(Cheers.) He now came to the most serious
part of the case. If there had been only one trial it
would have been bad enough, but it happened that there
had been four juries struck before that to which he had
been alluding. Two were the juries for trying Messrs.
O'Brien and Meagher, and two were struck to try
Mitchel for sedition, but that charge was abandoned when
the conviction for felony was obtained. In the case of
Mr. O'Brien, of the twelve jurors struck off by the Crown
ten were Roman Catholics, all men of the highest respect.
ability, and not one of them connected with any poli-
tical association. He would contrast this with what had
taken place at Mr. O'Connell's trial in 1844, a case
which had so much excited the anger of Hon. and Right
Hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the trial ten RoMan Ca.
tholics, were struck from the jury list by the Crown, but
of those, eight were admitted to be members of the Re-
peal Association, the Bluth had signed the requisition
for the monster meeting at Tara, and the tenth was
struck off without knowledge of his religion to make up
the necessary legal number.—(Hear, hear.) Now, there
was no reason why the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government should not look at these matters in the
same light in 1848 as he had done in 1844.—(Hear,
hear.) In that year (1844) the Noble Lord said, that
the conduct of the Government in striking of the ten
Roman Catholics was such as to deprive the legal pro-
ceedings of all moral weight or value.—(Hear, hear.)
When a motion was then made hostile to the Govern-
ment, the Noble Lord paired in favour of it, although he
had not heard the case or the justification. Why was
not the Noble Lord then in his place ?—(Hear.) He had
been there that evening to propose his third Coercion
Bill against Ireland.—(Cheers.) Ho would again be in
his place to proceed with a Bill, although when two
years and a half in office he had declared that he merely
occupied Ireland without governing it ; and yet when
the subject under discussion was a direct insult to the
Catholic people of Ireland, it was not deemed of suffi-
cieut importance to detain the Noble Lord.—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the
Home Department also gave his opinion on that occasion
in concurrence with that of the Noble Lord. But that
was not all. Various Members of the Government had,
in 1841, expressed strong opinions in Dublin relative to
the striking of Mr. O'Connell's jury. Without twenty_
four hours' delay, a meeting was called in Dublin to pro-
test against the conduct of the then Attorney General,
and among the foremost names to the requisition were
those of the present Master of the Mint and the present
Attorney-General.—(Loud cheers.) There was also
the name of Mr. Redington, the present Under Secre-
tary for Ireland—he was glad to see his Right Honour-
able Friend the Chief Secretary repudiated the
connexion. (Loud cheers and laughter.) The
Honourable and Learned Member quoted the speech
of the Right Hon. the Member for Dungarvon, on the
occasion alluded to, exhorting the people to memorialise
the Queen and both Houses of Parliament against what
the speaker styled the unconstitutional and illegal con-
duct of the Government. Mr. Wyse, the late Secretary
to the Board of Control, also spoke, and asked what
would be said in England if persons were struck off the
jury because of their religious opinions ?—(Hear, hear.)
But Mr. Redington, the Roman Catholic Secretary for
Ireland—he felt that it would be quite unworthy of the
faith he professed, making it a matter of faith—(Hear,
and a laugh)—that the course Ministers were adopting
would bring neither credit to the Crown, nor safety to the
State.—(Hear, bear.) There was yet another name he
must mention, as that of a gentleman who was present
at the same meeting—the present Attorney-General for
Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) This law officer of the Crown,
who had been conducting all these prosecutions, he
signed his name to the requisition calling the meeting,
and joined in the protest against the course the Go-
vernment had adopted. He might also refer, as
contrasting with the conduct of the Government now, to
the name of the present Chief-Governor of Ireland.—
(Hear.) When the motion brought forward by Lord
Normanby in the House of Lords condemning the con-
duct of the Government of the Right Hon. Baronet in
striking Roman Catholics off the jury was negatived,
and a protest on five points was entered on the journals
of the House against that decision, the second nave to
that protest, and for all the reasons, was " Clarendon."—
(Cheers.) But he had grounds far stronger and more
urgent than the conduct of the members of the present
Government when in opposition in favour of this motion.
Was there nothing in the present condition of Ireland
to warn the House against inducing, by any act of theirs,
a belief in the minds of the people of that country that
the law of England had been given to them, not as a
blessing and a boon, not as a law to be administered im-
partially and fairly to all, but as a means of oppression,
and for the purpose of obtaining verdicts by fraud and
connivance—(hear, hear)—to prevent men accused
of political offences from being tried fairly by
juries impartially chosen, and to enable the pro-
secutor, while protesting against partisanship in favour
of the prisoners, to choose a jury of men whose opinions
are known to be adverse to him ? This was the course
pursued in regard to the jury which tried Mr. Mitchel.
It was said that the object was to have men of respecta-
bility and wealth. Why, he had looked at the list of
the jury by which the prisoner was tried, and found that
some of them had been bankrupt or insolvent within a
few years previous. And yet these were men selected
for their wealth and respectability, while other men,
who were men of undoubted wealth and respectability,
were rejected. The Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite had
obtained their places by the cry that they would never
consent to any measure of coercion for Ireland, unless
accompanied by great and sweeping remedial measures.
—(Hear.) Whatever excuse there might have been in
1846 for postponing such measures, there was none in
1847. When the Noble Lord was in opposition his
advent to power was to bring plenty to the Irish people.
New measures were to be be brought forward—
waste lands were to be cultivated—the question
of the Roman Catholic clergy was to be settled, with-
out which settlement they were told there was to be no
peace for Ireland. But the present Ministry came in,
and 1846 was allowed to pass without any such mea-
sures ; 1847 was equally barren ; and when the session
of 1847-8 came last November, it brought with it—a
Coercion Bill.—(Hear.) And when his lion. Friends
opposite, who are connected with Ireland—and why they
were on that side he knew not—complained of this for-
feiture of Ministerial pledges, they were told " Wait till
we meet in February, and you shall have all you ask."
though he might have an opinion that when 5,000,0004
There was the Bill for the sale of ipnrcoummisbeedredmeeasstuarteess..
was already in the market, and no 0H: eepllri;ao dp theyonr ot
ythta:dkaesan saanayPi° partof in theseop opposing that measure,
pur-
chasers to be found, it could be but of little service sud-
denly to throw 10,000,000/. more into it. Another of the
remedial measures was that for improving the law of
landlord and tenant. But the present Government did
not take that measure into account as one of remedy
when the Protection for Life Bill was brought in by
the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel),
for at that time the Honourable Member for Falkirk-
shire had at least as good a Bill before the House.
Then they had been told that the grand jury system
was a great pest, and must be reformed. Now that
they had arrived at almost the close of the session he
might be allowed to ask where was the grand jury law ?
—(Hear, hear.) What then were the great remedial
measures Ministers had in their minds in 1846? It
had been said—and in the leading journal of this country
—that the people of Ireland indulged in extravagant ex-
pectations ? (Hear, hear.) Who had encouraged
them to those expectations? When the Noble Lord was
out of office nothing but large and comprehensive
schemes would be of service to Ireland. Where were
those schemes now? When in 1845 the party opposite
toaBst
418ta:ayecc
afterog theur
failed in forming an Administration, the Noble Lord
stated that he had hoped to form a great and com-
prehensive
Bills
comprehensive
peace in Ireland had he then come into office,
Coercionidy
o ot
grettod he had not succeeded in forming an Administra-
tion.ahne d
mightit
n what scheme
nt
wht
one session and another promised within twelve hours
scheme he cherished the hope of carrying in January,
1846?—(Hear, hear.) He asked was not this the time,
a time when they were proposing measures of coercion,
that they should, if they could not bring forward large
and comprehensive remedies, they should at least in-
quire into well-founded complaints? At a time when
republics were being formed out of the fragments of
ancient monarchies, when war was raging in the south,
and peace was scarcely established in the north of
Europe, might it not be prudent to do something to
rally round the British constitution the affections of all
her Majesty's subjects? Ho asked that House to give
to his countrymen the principle of the British constitu-
enmettwfloaunnedation of lasting
constitu-
tion, and not its cold and cheerless image. Let them do
this and the loyalty and valour of the Irish people
might bo depended on in all circumstances and
in all dangers, as in times past. This was
the spirit iu which he was anxious they should conciliate
the affections of the Irish people.—(" Oh," and hear,
from the Ministerial benches.) The sneer from Hon.
Gentleme❑ on the other side well became men who,
when out of office, found their profit in encouraging or
conniving at every species of agitation.—(Cheers, and
counter cheers.) He called upon them to show that all
their promises were not mere pretences, but that they

' were really anxious for the welfare of Ireland, by agree-
ing to his motion, viz.:—That a Select Committee be
appointed to inquire into the law and practice of strik-
ing juries in criminal cases in Ireland, and especially
into the facts connected with the striking of the juries
in the late cases of " The Queen against William Smith
O'Brien, M.P," " The Queen against Thomas Mea-
gher," and " The Queen against John Mitchel."
Mr. ANSTEY seconded the metion.
Sir G. GREY—I thought the Hon. Gentleman pro-
mised at the commencement of his speech that he would
keep entirely to the point of his motion, and show the
House that whatever might be the tone f his speeches
made elsewhere—(Hear, hear)—that to-night; at least,
he would show that he could keep within the bounds of
toleration, and that, influenced only by a pure love of
justice and a desire to promote its due administration—
(Cheers, and counter cheers)—he would abstain from
every topic not necessarily connected with the point he
had to establish.—(Hear, bear.) How he had kept
that promise, at least in the latter part of his speech,
the House is in a position to judge.—(Hear, and " Oh.")
I do not complain of the tone he has adopted, for I do
not expect from the Honourable Gentleman, so long as
I am a member of a Government which does not recog-
nize his merits, anything but violent party speeches
directed against us—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh,")
—most unfairly impugning our conduct since we have
been in office, forgetful altogether how the Govern.
rnent were engaged in endeavouring to mitigate the
distress of that country, the severest, perhaps, that
any country ever suffered—(Cheers)—and postponing
the discussion of political rights to the higher duty of
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and rescuing
from starvation and death thousands of the Hon. Mem-
ber's countrymen, while he was holding up to them the
phantom of repeal.—(Hear, hear, and interruption.)
Her Majesty's Government, so long as they held office,
will not be deterred from discharging their duty to the
country, and taking those measures on their own re-
sponsibility which the law authorises them to take, or
asking for additional powers to maintain the peace of
Ireland, or any part of the empire, by any taunts of the
Hon. Gentleman—(Oh, oh, and cheers)—who, in 1841,
was an ardent repealer and an humble worshipper of
the late Mr. O'Connell, and who at that time spoke of
the Government of Lord Melbourne as the most paternal
Government that had ever existed, lauding it with all
the eloquence which he has to-night displayed—who
in 1844 wrote a pamphlet equally laudatory of Earl de
Grey, and who, since he has taken his seat in this
House, and while a petition was pending against his
return, gave the present Government no reason to sup-
pose that he would be found among their opponents, if
they would use their influence to defeat the petition.
Mr. KEOGH—I assert in the most distinct terms that
that is untrue.—(Hear, and order.)
Sir G. GREY—Then I must have been misinformed.
Mr. KEOGH—I repudiate all the assertions of the
Right Hon. Baronet, except as regards the pamphlet, and
I will explain when he has done.—(Hear.)
Sir G. GREY—I apprehend, not all ; for I find that,
in 1841, at a dinner given to the Hon. Member for Mayo,
Mr. Dillon Browne, to congratulate him on his return,
Mr. Keogh was present, when Mr. Browne made an
eloquent speech.—(Mr. Keogh here made an observation
which was not heard in the gallery.) Perhaps it was
not the same Mr. Keogh, but it was a Mr. William
Keogh; and I find by the report that when Mr. Browne
spoke in favour of repeal, the whole assembly rose and
shouted " Dillon Browne and repeal."—(Hear, hear,
and cries of " Oh, oh.") Mr. D. Browne subsequently
proposed Mr. O'Connell's health, to which Mr. W. Keogh
responded in a speech with which, as the House has
already had a very long one from that Honourable and
Learned Gentleman, I will not now trouble it. But in
that speech he not only spoke in terms of the most un-
qualified approbation of Mr. O'Connell, but declared
that they were fighting for the constitutional liberties of
England under that Hon. and Learned Gentleman and
the paternal Government of Lord Melbourne.—(Cheers
and laughter.) All I will further say upon the subject
is, that her Majesty's Government will not be deterred
by that Hon. Member's taunts from proposing such mea-
sures as they may deem essential for the welfare and
security of Ireland. The Right Hon. Gentleman pro-
ceeded to observe, that he entirely concurred in the
opinion expressed by the Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Athlone, as to the necessity of a fair and impartial
administration of justice; and he believed that nothing
had been done by the sheriff inconsistent with that
opinion, with law, or with custom. The Hon. Gentle-
man said that the conduct of the sheriff must be im-
puted to the Government, because he was appointed by
the Government. But the Honourable Gentleman
would have shown more regard for that fair adminis-
tration of justice for which he professed so great an ad-
miration if he had explained that the Government se-
lected the sheriff from only three names which were sub-
mitted to it by the Chief Justice.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman had impugned the conduct of the sheriff,
but failed altogether in establishing the charge against
him of unfairly and partially selecting from the list in
order to obtain a conviction against Mitchel. The Hon.
Gentleman passed over much too lightly the challenge
to the array which took place in open court. The
sheriff did nothing in the case which he was not fully
authorised to do by law. He was bound to return a cer-
tain number out of the list, and he did so in the ordinary
course, which the Hon. Member himself in a degree
admitted by taking exception to the alphabetical arrange-
ment adopted in the case of Frost. As for the charge
that Roman Catholics had been struck off because they
were so, he Pegged altogether to deny it. The Attorney-
General in his instructions to Mr. Ketnmish, the Crown
Solicitor, required him not to set aside any per.on
on the ground of his religion; but he at the same time
observed that the instructions of Sir Michael O'Loghlen
not to set aside persons upon the ground of their poli-
tical opinions, although applicable to and to be observed
in the case of ordinary trials, was not applicable to and
ought not to be observed in this. The Attorney-General
said—" It is not and never was my wish or intention
that any persons should be set aside on account of their
religious opinions; but respecting their political opinions,
I do not think that the instructions given by previous
law officers were ever intended to apply to the present
case, where the party is to be tried for a political of-
fence which is openly countenanced by a political assn .
ciation, or that we should not set aside all persons whom,
upon inquiry, we found to entertain the political
opinions of that association, as well as all others who from
the nature of their occupation were likely to be deterred
from a fair discharge of their duty." Now that was his
answer to the charge brought against the Roman
Catholic Attorney. General of Ireland; and he asked the
Hon. Gentleman opposite whether he dissented from the
sentiments expressed in that letter by the Attorney-
General, or whether, if ho held that office himself, he
would not have acted in a similar manner. He intro-
duced the name of Mr. Campbell. Now, Mr. Campbell
was a grocer, and he believed he had been set aside
wholly on the last ground alluded to in the Attorney-
General's letter—namely. that his trade would have been
in danger of being ruined had he been nominated on the
jury. Taking all these circumstances into consideration,
he asked the House whether those charges were well
well founded. With regard to Mr. Kelly, he had been
struck off because he was a magistrate. But, without
further remark, he would read a letter from the Attorne-
y to the Lord-Lieutenant respecting the forma-
tion of the jury lists.—(The Right Hon. Gentleman then
read a very long letter from Mr. Monahan, stating
that he did not believe that a single person had been
struck off from the lists on account of his religious opi-
nions, and that he, as a Roman Catholic, would be no
party to such a course. He explained that Mr. Fitn-
gerald had been left in, being a Roman Catholic, but
under au erroneous impression as to his political senti-
ments, as he went to a repeal meeting soon after, and
took credit for the part he acted on the jury.) The Hon.
Geetteman and himself were now before the House, and
ho would leave the case to their decision.—(Hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman had taunted his Noble Friend (Lord J.
Russell) for having left the House when he was about to
bring on his present motion. His Noble Friend was
engaged in his very important duties elsewhere, and he
(Sir G. Grey) must tell the Hon. Member that his Noble
Friend's character was before the country, and was very
well able to sustain anything the Hon. Member could
say against it.

Mr. KEOGH, in explanation, said that he had been
charged by the Right Hon. Baronet with having offered
to give his support to the Government, if the Govern•.
ment would withdraw the petition against his return.
Sir G. GREY said what ho said was that the Hon.
Member had not given the Government reason to sup-
pose he would vote against them if the petition was with-
drawn.

Mr. KEOGH—Then that charge was refined away by
the means of two negatives. He had next been charged
with having been a repealer. He never was a repealer
—he had ten expressed his sentiments most strongly
against a repeal of the legislative union ; and the Hon.
Member for Dundalk would bear him out in his assertion.
Mr. HAWES said that a very unexpected, a very un-
justifiable attack had been made upon him by the Hon.
Member. He gave that attack a most entire and com-
plete repudiation. He had been no party in any way,
direct or indirect, to any petition against the Hon. and
Learned Member ; he had not the slightest knowledge of
any such petition being on foot.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr ANS TEY supported the amendment amid conti-
nuous cries of " Oh, oh," upon which, at length, the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman moved that the House do now
adjourn—a motion which, as at once putting a stop to
the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself,
created a general laugh throughout the House.
Mr. REYNOLDS thanked the Honourable and
Learned Member for the opportunity he had thus un-
expectedly afforded him—(Laughter)—of addressing
the House. He bad been appealed to as to the character
of the Catholics who had been excluded from the juries
on the trials of Messrs. Mitchel, Meagher, and O'Brien.
He had no hesitation in saying that he kuew these gen-
tlemen to be men of the highest personal character, and
he had as little hesitation in expressing the opinion that
their exclusion had been the result of foul play on the
part of some of the local authorities. He regarded the
discredit which had been cast upon the honour
and oaths of the Roman Catholics as even more in-
jurious than any coercion Bill, or than the wholesale po-
litical prosecutions which were being instituted. The
Honourable and Learned Member for Athlone seemed
very indignant at the suggestion of his having been a
repealer. It was questionable whether he would be a
whit less respectable than he was were ho a repealer
now ; but certain it was that at a public dinner at Clare-
morris, in October, 1840, the Honourable and
Learned Member had declared his breast to be full of
the subject which bad engrossed for thirty years the
efforts " of the great man of the world, Daniel
O'Connell." Ile had also the pamphlet of which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had acknowledged the
authorship, published in 1844, and entitled " Ireland
under Earl de Grey." In that pamphlet he had deli-
berately approved of the packing of a jury to try the
man who had been his political leader and liberator; for
Daniel O'Connell was then under trial. He had declared
that every impartial person must feel confidence in their
verdict; and yet that Terciiet had been set aside by the

House of Lords. Tho irnpanelling of that jury was
the most unprecedented act of political corruption ever
witnessed in Ireland.—(Question, question.) lie should
support the present motion if it went to a division.
Mr. HUDSON wished to know the authority on.
which the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone bad
charged the Government with influencing the election
committee for that borough. This was a great consti-
tutional question; and it was due to the House that
the grounds should be stated an which the charge was
made.

Sir G. GREY was very happy to satisfy the curiosity
of his Hon. Friend. The Government bad no power of
causing petitions to be withdrawn; but it was no au-
usual thing for arrangements to be made in the way of
conversation amongst individual Members. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman having denied the statement, he
was bound to accept the denial.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE (being loudly called for) said
he must protest against the idea that any one who gave
his support, or his money, to a candidate at an election,
was bound by all the opinions of that candidate. He did
not consider that by countenancing a repeal candidate he
was furthering repeal; he might be influenced by far
other considerations.--(Hear, hear.) No Member in the
House had suffered more than himself by his oppe,ition
to repeal.—(Hear, hear.) If he chose he could give a
satisfactory answer to the question of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman about the cheque; but, upon prin-
ciple, and out of respect to the House and his own inde-
pendence, he should decline to do so.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ANSTEY rose, but was met with cries of
" Spoke."
The SPEAKER said ho could not again address the
House unless he meant to withdraw the motion.

Mr. BRO MERTON—I shall certainly oppose the
withdrawal of the motio❑ for adjournment.—(Cries of
" Divide.")
Sir G. GREY hoped tha House would allow the divi-
sion to take place ou the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Athlone.

After a desultory conversation,
Mr. BANKES said he hoped that, before the di►ision,
the Hon. Secretary for Ireland would answer the ques-
tion whether he, as a member of the Government, had
drawn cheques to defray the expense of supporting an
election petition.—(No, no.) He disputed the Right of
the Hon. Gentleman, in the important official situation
he held, to act so as to support principles of which the
Government were daily expressing their aversion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hoped his Right Hon. Friend
(Sir W. Somerville) would not add anything to the
answer he had already given, and which was just what
honour and principle dictated. The idea that he had
disbursed the funds of the Government could never
have entered any one's head; and he was perfectly right
in refusing to be catechised on the manner in which he
had applied his own private funds.—(Cheers.) He
hoped the motion for adjournment would not now be
pressed; but considering the late hour, and that the
House met again at noon, it would be better to adjourn
the debate, rather than get rid of the question by ad-
journing the House.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE said his Right Hon. Friend
had correctly described his motives. He had under-
stood the lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite to
charge him with giving money as a private individual;
and on that account, thinking that the Hon. Gentleman
had no right to put the question, he had declined to
answer it. As to whether, in his public capacity as
Secretary of Ireland, he had furthered the election of a
Member of that House, he begged to meet it with a dis-
tinct denial.—(Cheers.)
Mr. MONSELL advocated the adjournment of the
debate.

Tne CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
that the House would divide, as at the present period of
the session it would be most inconvenient to have an ad-
journed debate on a motion for going into Committee of
Supply.

The
House divided on the question of the adjournment
of the House, when there appeared—
For the adjournment...
Against it
Majority —l33
On our re-entrance to the gallery,
Mr. ANSTEY was addressing the House, and com-
plained of a misquotation of a speech of the lion. Mem-
ber for Athlone, on the part of the Right lion. Baronet
(Sir G. Grey). There was no parity between the con-
duct pursued by the late Government in the case of Mr.
O'Connell anti that pursued by the present Govern-
ment with respect to the late trials, because the late Go-
vernment were right, supposing that all the persons
whom they struck off were repealers, but there was no
reason for supposing with respect to four Roman Catho-
lics who were struck off in the recent trial of Mr.
Mitchel that they were repealers. The Hon. Member
continued to address the (louse in the midst of loud
vociferations and groans from all parts of the House.
Mr. FAGAN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. ANSTEY seconded the motion.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but were speedily
re -admitted.

Mr. SADLIER was appealing to the Government to
consent to an adjournment.

• Sir G. GREY reluctantly assented, and the debate
was adjourned until Monday next.
RATING OF STOCK IN TRADE.
Mr. C. LEWIS obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
continue, for a time to be limited, the exemption of in-
habitants from liability to be rated as such in respect of
stock in trade or other property to the relief of the poor.
THE OMITTED LETTER.
Lord G. BENTINCK moved an address, praying that
her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct the
Earl of Elgin and Kincardine forthwith to transmit to
her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies copies
of the omitted correspondence between the Provincial
Secretary of Canada and the Secretary of the Montreal
Board of Trade, and to direct that the same may be laid
before this House.
Mr. B. HAWES objected to the use of the word
" correspondence." The only matter omitted was one
letter.

Lord G. BENTINCK defended the expression.
Sir G. GREY thought the wording of the motion very
unusual, and suggested the motion should be postponed,
in order to be re-worded.

Lord G. BENTINCK said he would make a formal
motion on going int. Supply.—(oh.)
The CiIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
they simply wanted the thing to be done properly.
Motion postponed until the first Supply night.
OTHER CORRESPONDENCE.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK then moved an address
for copies of any correspondence, petitions, or memo-
rials, relative to the repeal of the navigation-lewd,
which may have been sent home by the gorernor of Now
Brunswick.
Mr. HAWES said the usual way of wording the mo-
tion was "copies or extracts."
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK bad no confidence in
Colonial-office extracts.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. C.
Anstey.)
Mr. HAWES did not want the Noble Lord's con-
fidence. He only wanted the usual forms attended to.
The motion, as amended by Mr. Hawes, was then put
and agreed to.
On Mr. PARKER bringing up a Bill, and moving
that it be read a first time,
Lord G. BENTINCK said—Oh, no; after this I shall
object to doing anything more.
Sir G. GREY—It is only a first reading.
Lord G. BENTINCK—I object, air.
The House adjourned at a Quarter after Two.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.
LIVERPOOL, JULY 21.
STOCK Excitmtort.—There is a very dull demand for
shares to-day, and but very little business doing. The sales
are—Caledonian, 2:ll4Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths, 1
dis.—Ditto, 10/. Shares, Preference, Ils. 3d. p.—London
and North-Western, 127—Ditto, Quarters, New, 13/4 p.—
Midland Stock, New Halves, 5% dis.—North Staffordshire.
2% dis.—South-Eastern and Dover, No. 2, Yorb;
Newcastle, and Berwick (N. and B. Extension), No. 2, ix p
MANCHESTER, JuLy 21.
STOCK EXCHA.NGE.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Lanca-
shire, and Cheshire Junction, 31/. Shares, 7 7-16
Lancashire and Yorkshire (Manchester and Leeds), Fifths,
1 1-16 dis.—Ditto (late West Riding Union) Fifths, 3 13-16
dis.—Ditto, 10/. Preference, 6 per cent., % p.—Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Preference, 101,i—North Stafford-
shire, 2 9-16 dis. —Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton,
17,4 dis.—Shrewsbury and Birmingham (B), 3 7-16 dis.—
York, Newcastle, and tierwick (G. N. E. Purlaase), 1 9-16 p.
BIRMINGHAM, JULY 21.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—Notwithstanding the unfavourable
news from Ireland, and consequent depression of the Consol
and Share Market in London, there has been a good deal of
business done to-day; and, considering all things, at not
discouraging prices. The sales are—Chester and Holyhead,
20 dis. —North Staffordshire, 2% dis.—Oxford, Worcester,
and Wolverhampton, 18 dis. —Shrewsbury and Birmingham
(A), 51. 3s. 9d. dis. ex int.—Shropshire Union, 568. 3d. c. dia.
ex int.—South Staffordshire, dig.

ateerus.
The lady of Lieutenant Brenton von Donor, of her Ma•
jestv's ship President, of a daughter.
On the 13th inst., at Hayston-lodge, Pembrokeshire, the
lady of Ilonton Rhys, Esq., of a son and heir.
On the 18th inst., at houndshill, Worcestershire, the wife
of E P. Shirley, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 19th inst., at Glocester-road, Regent's-park, the
wife of J. G. Barton, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 19th inst., at Hanover-villas, Notting-hill, Mrs. G.
G. Stone, of a son.
On the 9th inst., at Belle Vue-house. Notting-hill, the
wife of C. H. Barnes, Esq., of a son.

MARRIED.
On the 18th inst., at Bathwick Church, Bath, the Rev.
George E. Murray, rector of Southfleet, Kent, eldest son of
the Lord Bishop of Rochester, to Penelope Frances Elizabeth
Pemberton, youngest daughter of Brigadier-General Austin,
x.c.T.s.
On the 19th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, T
Dowling, Esq., eldest son of the late Captain Dowling, Bar-
rackmaster of St. James's, to Charlotte Bazett, second
daughter of J. H. Dunn, Esq., of Hertford-street, Park-lane.
On the 20th inst., at St. Marylebone Church, Robert L.
Day, Captain 85th (King's) Light Infantry, second son of
C. Day, Esq., of Bevis-hill, Southampton, to Louisa,
youngest daughter of J. Reid, Esq., of Cornwall-terrace.
Regent's-park.

DIED.
On the 15th inst., at Elm's• hall, Colne-Engaine, Eases.
Mr. J. B. Brown, aged 37.
On the 15th inst., Mr. Silas K. Cook, of Rotherhithar
Surrey, aged 58.
On the 17th inst., T. Kennedy, Esq., of High-streets
Camden-town, aged 86.
On the 18th inst., at East Parade, Leeds, the Rev. R. W
Hamilton, LL.D., aged 64.

On the 18th inst., at Bircingham, aged 38, Ann, the wife
of Mr. Benjamin Hall.
On the 18th inst., at Raniegate, Harriette Sarah, the wife of
H. J. Sawyer, Esq.. of the Middle Temple, aged 26.
On the 19th inst.. in Sloane-street, Chelsea, Mrs. Dorothy
Fuge, relict of the late Mr. J. liuge, upwards of 55 years as
inhabitant of the above street, aged 7L

London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Offiee, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in bths mut/ •
riLiddlealz, Saturday, July 22, 1848.