The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-27 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(YESTERDAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 4.

WIISPORD, CARLOW, AND DUBLIN
JUNCTION,

• (Continued from oar 'Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The Oran/man said that if the Committee decided
that the allegation was proved, they must consider that Mr.
Curtis's statement was utterly false, while it was perfectly
consistent to suppose that the statement of Mr. Curtis was
true, and that Mr. Brennan was mistaken.
The Committee decided that the allegation was not proved.
The next allegation was that another petitioner, Mrs. Per-
ceval, had received no notice except on Sunday, the 28th of
, December.
Mrs. Perceval was called to prove that she was served per-
sonally with the notice on the day in question.
Mr. Curtis was again called to prove that he left the
notice on Saturday, but that on Sunday he called and left
the form of assent with Mrs: Perceval.
Mrs. Perceval was recalled, and said that she received
both the notice and the form of assent from Mr. Curtis on
Sunday.
The CHAIRMAN said that it was impossible that Mrs. Per-
cival could be mistaken, but that Mr. Curtis might possibly
be mistaken, having so many notices to serve. The Coin-
mittee, therefore, decided that the allegation was preyed.
The third allegation was that Mary Ann Moran, another
petitioner, had received no notice except ou Sunday.
A sister of the petitioner was called upon to prove that she
received the notice from a strange gentleman, on the 28th
December.
Mr. Curtis said that he served the notice on a week day
but could not say when. He thought it was on Monday, the
29th December, but was not sure, as he kept no dated memo-
randa of the service of notices.
Mr. T. W. O'Brien, a person engaged in the office of the
solicitor to an opposing line, said, that on Sunday, the 28th of
December, he saw a person going to the house of Miss
Moran, and hand to her sister, who came to the door, a
paper, which he supposed to be a notice. He went to the
house as soon as the gentleman was gone to request Miss
Moran to allow him to see the paper, and he found that it
was a notice from the Wexford, Carlow, and Dublin Junc-
tion Railway Company. In cress examination, he said that
he went out for the purpose of seeing whether any person was
serving notices from this company. He- believed :that the
person whom he saw serving the notice on Miss Moran was
Mr. Curtis.

The Committee decided that this allegation was proved

The petition of Sarah Ann Gaubiere and Michael Kernan
was then taken. This petition stated that the name of the
petitioner Sarah Ann Gaubiere was not inserted is the books
of reference, or plans, as lessee of the land marked 18 to 29,
including 18A and 26A, although she was the lessee of that
land.

A witness was called in support of this petition, but could
not point out the property on the plan, and when some of
the numbers in question were pointed out to him, he could
not say that they referred to the same property as that in
which Miss Gaubiere is lessee. He could not say what was
the nature of Miss Gaubiere's interest in the property.
The Committee considered the allegation net proved.
It was alleged that Michael Kernan was the lessee of cer-
tain property, namely, the fields No. 94, 95, and 97.
A witness, who was acquainted with the locality, was
called to prove that the fields in question were held on lease
by Michael Kernan.
Mr. Curtis proved that, in a conversation between himself
and Michael Kernan, the latter pointed out the fields in
question as belonging to another parson.
Mr. 'lnv'', the agent for the petitioners, withdrew the al-
legation, saying that it was clearly a mistake.
The petition of Joseph Carley was next taken. It was
alleged that there was a public road between the fields No.
3 and No. 4, in the parish of Killcorin, which was not named
in the books of reference, or represented in the plans.
A person who formerly held the office of surveyor
in the parish of Killcorin was called in support of the alle-
gation, but as he could not say positively that the road was
in the position described in the petition the allegation fell to
the ground.
It was alleged that a certain road was described in the
book of reference as the property of the Earl of Arran,
whereas it was a public road, but on refering to the book of
reference it was found that it was not so marked, but that
the preceding and following numbers were marked as the
property of the Earl, and that there was no name of any
owner given.
Mr. Smith, the agent for the Bill, stated that there were
several roads in the parish of Killcorin, which were said, in
the book of reference, to be the property of the Earl of
Arran, and which, it was alleged by the petitioner,
were highway roads, under the jurisdiction of the
grand jury. Now he (Mr. Smith) thought he could prove
that they were at that time the property of the Earl of Arran ;
and he could also prove that although they were not de-
scribed as public highways in the book of reerence, yet,
nevertheless, the clerk of the grand jury hat been served
with notices.

After a long and desultory conversation,
A witness was called to prove that notices were served on
the clerk of the grand jury in reference to these roads. But,
on cross-examination, he admitted that they 'lid not con-
tain exact copies of the entries in the book of reference, as
in the book of reference either Lord Arran was described as
owner, or there was no owner named, while in the extracts
given in the notice the grand jury were named as the owners.
The CHAIRMAN observes that the Committee intended to
report in reference to those roads in which there were no
names of owners or occupiers that the standing orders were '
not complied with.
The petition of Herbert Hoare was next taken. It alleged
that certain property was described as having no lessee,
whereas he, the petitioner, was the lessee of that property.
It was represented by the promoters of the Bill that the error
arose from the fact that at the time the property was
entered in the book of reference, the lease of Herbert Hoar.
had just expired, and it was not the intention of the proprie-
tors of the land to give a new lease to the petitioner, which
had been done since.

Several of the allegations were admitted to be made under
a 'mistake, and were withdrawn.

The last allegation was that Mary Preston was represented
in the book of reference to be the occupier of curtain pro-
perty, of which Alexander Preston was the actual owner.
This was admitted to be the case, but it appeared that Mr.
A. Preston was trustee, under the will of his brother, de-
ceased, for ➢Lary Preston, the widow of the latter.
Mr. HUNT said, that as it was clear that the error had
originated in the parties being misled, he would withdraw
the allegation.
The Committee then adjourned, but did not fix a day for
their next meeting.

PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented fifty-four pe-
,itions from parishes in Derbyshire, in favour of pro-
tection to agriculture and against the measures pro-
posed by the Government.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said he had to put
two questions to the Noble Earl (the Secretary for
Ireland) regarding the execution of Brian Seery. The
first question was whether there had been a deputation
to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as stated, prior to
the man's execution, and the second question was whe-
ther, if there had been such a deputation, it could be con-
sidered an improper proceeding of those forming that
deputation? It did not follow that what would be con-
sidered improper in this country should be held to be
wrong in Ireland. He would state to their Lordships
the hardships the Commission at Westmeath had
to encounter from those opposed to it. A cer-
tain portion of the press was violently opposed
to the Government Commission and a great
feeling was created against their proceedings.
All this arose out of a conspiracy, a conspiracy involving
almost all the lower population in Ireland from the age
of sixteen to twenty-five. After the excitement which
had taken place, after the manner in which the Com-
mission was said to be got up—it was almost strange the
jury had not given way. He was perfectly sure the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland would have acted with that modera-
tion and firmness that was necessary in looking into
the circumstances of that case, and would not be
swayed by any iatelligence from any body of men in de-
ciding on the fate of Seery. He however would say that
if any Minister of the Crown had eo acted, that it was
in the present state of that country most unfortunate.
The observations or expressions which had fallen from a
certain individual were most unusual, because they must
know that in that county there were persons who gladly
took hold of any circumstances whatever to held up in-
individuals to public admonition by misrepresenting
their conduct. Now he would show their Lordships how
justifiable was the conduct of such indviduals, by stating
what were the acts of the Roman Catholic clergy. Ho
would tell their Lordships that before the Commissioners
came down to Westmeath, the Roman Catholic Bishop
gave out, in the presence of a large congrega-
tion, that Brian Seery was innocent, and with
that kind of announcement which was very well
understood in that country by many who were
ufraid to give expression to their opinions. After
his conviction, a letter of a most extraordinary,
and he should say of an indecent nature, appeared with
the name of the Romish bishop of that diocese attached
to it. That letter condemned the course adopted by the
counsel for the prosecution, the Government, and all
the proceedings of that trial throughout, and the object
was to excite the people to believe that the unfortunate
man was sacrificed, and that he was innocent. When
the Government had determined that the law in that re-
gard should take its course, the people were called upon
from the altar, to stay away from the execution, and
persons were posted on the road to watch those who
dared to disobey that mandate. Under these circum-
stances, which no one regretted more than he did, and
what, he was sorry to say, could not occur in any
country but Ireland, and which were not unusual there,
he should wish that those Noble Lords, and those per-
sons who were anxious to bring in some other measures
to accompany the one recently brought in by the Go-
vernment, would take this matter into their serious
consideration, and would reflect that (as had been re-
marked a few evenings back) by a Noble Marquis, whom
he did not now see in his place, that the supremacy of the
law must first be established, security given to life and
property, and the country be freed from the threats bul-
lying and insinuations of the Roman Catholic clergy
of Ireland. This interference to winch he
alluded, before the trial, after the trial,
and during the execution, must be prevented,
and he thought that he had said enough on the subject
to open people's eyes to the necessity of such interference.
Under these circumstances, he wished to be informed
whether any deputation had waited on the Lord-Lieu-
tenant, whether that deputation went from Westmeath,
and whether, under the peculiar circumstances of that
country, it was considered by the Government that such
a proceeding was harsh on the part of that deputation ?
The Earl St. GERMANS said that it was not his
intention to follow the Noble Marquis into any discus-
sion on the state of Ireland, but before he proceeded to
answer the questions put by the Noble Marquis, he must
enter his protest, if the phrase were nut unparlia-
mentary, against the calumnious assertion, that the
youths of Ireland were banded together in confe-
deracy against the peace of Ireland ; he also
protested against the assertion made against the
Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, as a body.
lie (Earl St. Germans) must say that many of those
gentlemen were eminent for their piety and charity,
and their attention to the religious and social interests
of the people. He would now proceed to answer
the questions which the Noble Marquis had
placed upon the table ; and he could not do
better, he thought, than read an extract from a letter
written by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to the Right
Hon. the Secretary of State. The Lord-Lieutenant
said that neither the language of the deputation nor that
of any individual member of it—and he (Earl St. Ger-
mans) could give the names of the members composing
it, but he did not think it advisable to do so—" had the
slightest influence on his mind or swayed in the smallest
his judgment in the case of Brian Seery. The prin-
cipal object of the deputation was to represent the
lawless state of Roscommon." not of Westmeath, " with
a view of getting the Government to enter into
more stringent measures for the pacification of
that country." He understood that they had stated
that any leniency to Brian Seery would be looked upon
as evidencing the weakness of the Government, and keep
alive that sanguinary spirit which was so fatal to the
peace cf the country. He apprehended that that extract
would fully satisfy the questions of the Noble Marquis.
With regard to the third question, he was certain that
the persons who composed that deputation were actuated
solely by a sense of duty in making that representation;
but, at the same time, he (Earl St. Germans) was ready
to acknowledge that the proceeding was altogether an
unusual one, and he was not aware that in this country
such a representation was ever made by a deputation to
the head of the Executive Government. He did not
wish to say anything harsh, but he had no hesitation in
pronouncing this a most unusual course on the part of
that deputation.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH wished to explain,
and sail he was glad he had given the Noble Earl an
opporunity of making the statement he had done. If
it was not unparliamentary he (the Marquis of West-
meath) would say that the expressions he had used,
which the Noble lied had objected to, were intended to
be applied to the youth lin those counties
who were under the iron servitude of the
Ribbon conspiracy.—(Hear, hear.) He was glad
that the Noble Earl had withdrawn the expression
" harsh," which had been the cause of his (the Marquis
of Westeseath's) attention being called to the matter,
and his giving the notice he had done.
The Earl ST. GERMANS was glad that the qualify-
ing of the expression had so far satisfied the Noble Mar-
quis; but he (Earl St. Germans) could not agree with the
declaration that the whole youth of the country were
affected in the manner described. Ho was not justified
in applying such a charge to the whole youth of the
country.
The Earl of WESTMEATH said he would back his
opinion against that of the Noble Earl in this respect.
Lard S rORTON, in a very inaudible tone of voice,
defended the Roman Catholics from the charges of the
Noble Marquis. It was a hard thing to say that because
a juror was a Catholic his oath was invalid. From the
statement of the Noble Marquis, the House would be led
to believe that the jury to which he had alluded were
Catholics, but he (Lord Stourton) was informed that
they were exclusively Protestants. It was hard too to say
that a priest or a bishop of the Catholic religion must
be prevented from giving proper advice to his people
from the altars of his church. For his own part, he
believed that, notwithstanding all the calumnies which
had been heaped upon the priests of the Catholic
Church, they were still the best guardians and comfort-
ers of the people of Ireland.
Lord BROUGHAM protested against such a subject
as the present being converted into a religious question—
(Hear, hear)—and he did not think that any one
did any service to the great and sacred cause of the
due administration of justice who attempted to ask
whether a jury was Catholic or Protestant, because such
discussions tended to poison the administr ition of jus-
tice at its source.—(Cheers.) He (Lord Brougham) also
hoped and trusted that the Noble
Lord who had spoken
last was well grounded in his opinion, that the Catholic
priests were the best friends and adatjnistrators of jusj