The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-26 00:00:00

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I rise, Sir, to bring forward
a motion for the relief of Dissenters, in relation to their
martiages. It is well known to every hon. gentleman in
this house that it is a subject on which the dissenting
community have for a long time evinced the greatest
anxiety. It is a subject on which they complain of the
violence done to their feelings, to be compelled to go be-
fore the ministers of the church from which they dissent,
and submit to modes and forms which they do not ac-
knowledge.—(Heir, hear.) It is equally painful to the
ministers of the Established Church, within whose func-
tions it came to perform the martiaee ceremony for Die.
centers, to witness the cold disregard of the rites which they
were called upon to perform. It will, therefore, give me
the greatest pleasure if this measure which I am to bring be-
fore the house be considered what I believe it to be—one
which, at the same time that it commits no injury, nor
infringes on any of the rights of the established church,
protects from violence the religious feelings and opinions of
the dissenting community. With this view I shall tres-
pass on the attention of the brine whilst I propose a plan
which, if it do not obviate all difficulties, and meet every
objection, will at least be allowed to afford some substan-
tial relief to the dissenting body. Two modes present
themselves to me, by which this relief could be afforded ;
first, by making marriage a civil contract, and afterwards
let the religious ceremonial take place; or, secondly, by
arrangingthat the marl iagesof dissenting ministers be made
legal. The first of these mcdes,l must admit, has the advantage
of simplicity, andcould be effected by the removal of the
technicalities which now encumber the contract ; but
then lam inclined to think that such a proposal would
be repugnant to the feelings of the people of this coun-
try.—(Hear, hear.) The second mode, that of enabling
dissenting ministers to perform the ceremony, is that to
which I hold, and on which my proposed plan is
founded. This plan does not contemplate the licensing
of all dissenting chapels. It proposes that where twenty
householders apply by way of memorial or petition to
have
be
forwardedany
particulartnthe Q
chapelbmadrai licensed,tsyebrebtl
ng g t h
mini
e Sessionse. p p cbaet o
license,
eesnhsael,
when shall
cnhed.
apel, that
B By provided,
thpi
s shallubmlbi:aitnpyslaced in a conspicuous part of
the t
aiiventostethrse
would b
privilegee
b
enabled to perform the ceremony ; but they should be
o
required to specify the marriages they performed. The
measure proposes that the marriages should take place
either by bans or license. If by bans, the regular no-
tice is required to he given to the clergyman of the esta-
blished church in the parish ; or if the parties live in two
parishes, to the clergy of both. If then the parties wish
to be married by a dissenting minister, they ask from the
clergyman of the established church a certificate to show
that the bans have been published, which certificate be
enters in a book kept for that purpose. The dissenting
minister then gives a notice which he also enters in
a record. There is one difficulty in the way of this pro-
ceeding, but it is not an insuperable one. In granting the
proposed relief, it may be said that a certain compensation
was lost, but that would be obviated by the dissenting mini-
ster keeping a constant register, of which he should transmit
copies, together with the fees. This mode would render
the regist y mote correct, as there would be in the first
place the registry of the bans, and then the record kept
in the dissenters' chapel. As matters are now, the re-
cords are irregularly kept; but with the fee attached to
the registry, they would become more regular. There is
artuth,t.- d.ffteulty. It may be s•id that the registers of
the church must be more regular, as there is not that
fiuctua ion or abandonment to which dissenting chapels
are liable. This objection I would meet by vesting a
power in the Quarter Session : if a chapel became untie-
quented, to prevent the license, and have the register trans-
mitted to the diocese.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the
other mode by license, it should go on as now, by appli-
cation to the surrogate. Except in a .ew forms, there
is no great difficulty in the measure. These are the
chief provisions of the measure I intend proposing to the
house. There may at first sight appear some difficulty in
the measure, but, wi' h a spirit of conciliation, they may
easily be obviated. With a disposition to wave objections,
and give up scruples on both sites, the measure is one that
may be rendered satistactory.—(Hear.) I trust the
house will exhibit such a disposition, as the measure is one
which, whilst it preserves to the est iblished church its
just rights and privileges, is still calculated not to wound
the consciences either of Catholic or Protestant Dissenter,
and of a nature to put an end to grievances which parti-
cularly affect London and Manchester, as in both places
,t is known that many unhappy consequences ensue
nom the invalidity of marriages performed by Roman Ca•
iholic priests, of which either party may take advantage.
Having thus explained the object of the bill, 1 shall not
pies. longer on the attention of the house.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME contended that the marriage ceremony
ought to be considered as a civil contract. The imperfec-
two in the recori s of births and marriages was not to be
wondered at, inasmuch as no simple plan %%as adopted.
In other countries their modes were simple, and why not
borrow an example from these? Why not have the mar-
riage contract entered into before a civil magistrate. The
proposed plan was too complex.—(hear.) What was the
use of the certificates ? Would it not be much better to
simplify the whole? It was on the whole but a partial
asure. Why not adoptsorne gelietal and more compre-
hensive system of a civil record? But still he would not
throw any obstacle in the way.
Sir R. INGLIS was also of opinion that the measure
was too complex. .

Dr. LUSiIL\ GTON thought that if the general prin-
ciple could be carried into effect it would be most advisa-
ble, most simple and efficient. After publicity had been
gained the contract could be entered into by a civil cere-
mony, leaving the parties at any subsequent period to
comply with those other ceremonies which their con-
sciences might require.—(Hear, hear.) But he thought
this counity had not yet arrived at that state which would
warrant such a measure. There was too great a variety
of contending opinions on the nature of the contract.
Wh itever might be the judgment of that house, it would be
d.fficult to carry the general principle into universal effect
without violating the feelings of those persons who ad-
hered rigidly to the forms and practices of the established
church. If the measure proposed would have the effect
of removing from the dissenters the restrictions which
pressed painfully upon them, without at the same time
encroaching on Lny of the privileges of the established
caurch, the house would be bound to accept the advant-
ages proposed by the measure. As, on the one hand, no
person of the established church who was nut very
scrupulous could urge any sound reason against it ; so, tn
the other, no well-judging dissenter would hesitate to comply
with the preliminaries. Tire publicity made compulsory by
the measure was mostnecessary and desirable, to check clan-
destine marriages and all their consequent misery. Ha ad-
mitted there were some d.fficulties, but they were such as
could be surmounted. He agreed is ith his hon. friend the
member for Middlesex, that it would be better if the en-
tireway
of principle
this the greatcould bdffi
eiacdaoly of italucing popular coin-
ptted, but there stood in the
pliance.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the objectioncon-
cerning the irregularity of registries, even in the registries
of births these irregularities were known to exist, and
many baptisms remained unrecorded long after the proper
time bad gone by. The hon. baronet (the member for
the University of Oxford) complained that the-measure
was a complex one. For his (Dr. Lushington's) pa, t,
be did not see one atom of complexity.—(Hear, hear.)
Nothing could be more simple, more plain, more intel-
ligible. Dissenters wished to be married in their own
chapels. / The bans were to be published as usual ;
there would be no chauge, but if the bill should
pass into an act, it would empower the dissenter to go
to the minister of the church where the bans had been
published, and say, give and a certificate of such publi-
cation. T..at being obtained, he would then get married
in the chapel named in the declarati.,n. Where was the
difficulty in this—where the complexity? Looking
to the history of the marnage contract, the principle con.
tended fur was the same as that acknowledged in the
ancient system. In 1756 ninety-nine cases out of a hun-
dred were made by a promise between two individuals,
wbich was perfectly binding. Then came Lord Hardwick's
act, intended for the suppression of clandestine marriages,
but fraught whh other evils, and one of these was the
wholesale violation of conscience which it created. It
pressed most severely on the dissenter, imposing upon him

the necessity of submitting to a form io marriage of which
he disapproved, and compelled him to go under its yoke.
The house should adopt any measure which would be likely
to meet general assent, and relieve the dissenter from this
galling position.—(Hear.) Every individual who revered
the ceremony, and who would not wish to see it desecrated
by having it imposed upon those who in conscience were
opposed to it, was bound to support the measure sub-
mitted by his noble friend.—(Hear, hear.) He would
say but one word more, and that was to assure the house
that he would not support this measure if he thought it
would be of violence to the consciences of the clergy
of the church established. As far as regarded them
they were only required to publish the bans, not
knowing whether the parties who applied belonged to
the establishment or a dissenting congregation. They
then had but to grant the certificate of publication, and
surely there was nothing in either of these duties to vio-
late the most delicate conscience.—(Hear, hear.) In an-
swer to the hon. member for Westminster be would say
again, that he should have no objection to dispense with
the publication of the bans if possible; but it seemed to
him absolutely necessary to have this provision complied
with, as there was no other way to avoid and obviate the
evil consequence of clandestine engagements but by such
publicity. When this matter came under further discus.
sion he hoped it would receive all the improvement of
which it was susceptible, and then he trusted it would be
hailed by the dissenters as a real relief, whilst the members
of the church of England would consider it as rather aid-
ing than infringing their real interests.
Sir GEORGE GREY thought there ought to be
some decided improvement in the system of registration
of births, mat riiges, and deaths. The dissenters felt the
present system to be a heavy burden upon their con-
sciences, and he knew that several bad in consequence
not been baptised at all, whilst others were not baptised
till a mature age, thus rendering the evidence of their
birth of a very doubtful nature. This country was, in
point of fact, behind every other in that respect.—(Hear.)
He regarded the bill of the noble lord below him with
gleat satisfaction as the first step towards the concession
of the just claims of dissenters.—(Hear.) He said the
first step, and be thought the noble lord would agree
with him that concession ought not to stop here. He
laid an emphasis on just claims because be thought that
many claims put forward by dissenters, at the present d
were very unjust. Asa member of the established church
he would consent to nothing that would injure that
church, but he thought the hest way to prevent unjust
claims was to accede to those which were just.
Mr. ESTCOURT was anxious to guard himself from
being considered to sanction the noble lord's measure in
its present state, but sincerely hoped that on further in-
vestigation it would be found such as he could conscien
tiously support.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM contended, that if the prevention
of clandestine marriages amongst the dissenters were an
object, it would he far better attained by publishing the
bans in the congregation to which the individuals be-
longed than as at present at the parish church.—(Hear.)
Mr. EWART regretted to say that he did not consider
this measure sufficiently impartial—that it did not fully
redress practical grievances. As far as it went he ap-
proved of it, but nothing less than a general system of
satisfyregistration
senoftebrsir.ths, marriages, and deaths would ever
registry was very much felt in Ireland.
Mr. FAITHFUL said the measure of the nob'e lord
was too minute, and, if be might be allowed the word,
too contemptible to thank him for. So far from consider-
ing it as a boon, be would only treat it as a flagrant in.
justice. The rights of Dissenters had long been withheld
from them. This bill not only did nut restore them, but
it did not restore any part of them. When, however, it
was brought bofore the house be would give it all the
attention in his power.

After a few words in reply from Lord J. RUSSELL,
who pledged himself to remove any objection to the bill
in a future stage, leive was given to bring in the bill.

LAND ALLOTMENTS FOR LABOURERS.

Mr. PRYAIE, alter a few observations which we were
unable to hear. remarked, that ea the poor law system
was to begin de novo, the object he had in view was to
make it compulsory on parishes to purchase and enclose a
certain quantity of land, to be let at a moderate rent, for
the benefit of the labourers. Among other cases in which
a step of that kind had been attended with great public
advantage, the hon. gentleman instanced that of Saffron
Walden, in Essex, where a number of the labourers hav-
ing had such allotments of land as he alluded to given to
them, on a subsequent occasion, when there were riots in
the parish, ranged themselves under the orders of the
magistrates, and materially contributed to the restoration
of tranquillity. He was convinced that an acquiescence
in his plan, while it created greater independence on the
part of the labourers, and reduced the poor rates, would
be prouuctive of advantages to the landlord in other shapes,
much greater than those landlords would enjoy if the allot.
ments were made to themselves. There would be no real
vio ation of property whatever, although there might ap-
pear to be so; for the landlord, while he got twenty shil-
hove an acre for the land, would save a like sum in poor
rates, making in the whole forty shillings an acre. He
knew an instance, before he had the honour of being a
member of that house, of the introduction of this plan
into a parish in Huntingdonshire; and the consequence
was, the labourers of that parish all became pro-perous
and happy. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving
the following resolution That the committee on every
Enclosure Bill shall, in their report, certify whether a
portion of land, as near to the village as conveniently may
be, and not less titan in the proportion of one acre to
every 25 inhabitants according to the last population cen-
sus, has been by such bill directed to be allotted out of the
commonable lands or waste grounds to the incumbent of
the living and the parish officers for the time b ing, and
the owners of 100 acres of land in such palish, as trus-
tees, in trust to let the same in small portions, at low rents,
to all labourers resident in the parish who may be desirous
of hiring the saute, such rents to be paid to the pariah
officers for the time being, in aid of the poor rates ; or
whether there be any special reason why such allotment
cannot conveniently or properly be made in that particular
instance."

Mr. RICHARD POTTER seconded the motion of the
hon and learned member for Cambridge, and felt con-
vinced that the plan would, if carried, produce the most
beneficial effects to agricultural labourers. In his opi-
nion it would have a tendency to raise their moral
characters by giving them an interest in the soil
which at present they did not possess. It was
difficult, if not impossible, for a labourer to rent the
smallest portion of land : be knew many instances of
the great advantage to labourers occupying a small quantity
of land. He only wished the hon. gentleman had gone a
little further, and proposed that, in every future Enclosure
Bill, a portion should be set out for the exercise and
amusement of the people: at present every place was
closed against them.
Mr. GISBORNE would divide the house on the subject.

Mr. TOWER contended, as we understood, that the
motion-was not sufficiently comprehensive to effect the
object which the hon. gentleman had in view.
Mr. PR ME replied.
The house then divided-
-31
For the motion
P 26
1)5
THE PILOT NEWSPAPER.
On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. 0, DNVYER
stating that tme accusation which he was about to prefer,
was one of a most serious nature; namely, that in a trial
between the crown and a subject, a jury had been em-
paunelled for the express purpose of procuring
iaernsracioanny evidentlygoßill.
convic-
tion. The trial arose out of an aollfegAedprilliletl
about the period at which tile Irish Coercion Bill passed
thApril—the written,
alleged
rweceived
libelei
vhiveod,,ousustgeip,,heu
ought to
loysthuhi
el:adavPsoes
net Pilot newspaper.
teonirnesewdt
hts
the
eat
fp2ell.lrdm.
vwrittenern mweansut
.ni
instituted
tougr
treet
dial
at
taegxar,cil tesegtueidetnhte,
libel, and under circumstance
tve v e r f a t
h,eprosecu-
tionje w s
proprietorho
paper. The pannel was returned in a manner worthy of
the worst days of ascendancy in that country, and under a
jury. law which had been condemned by the government
itself ; but of 174 names first on the pannel, there
were only seven Roman Catholics and an equal num-
ber of Prote,tants unconnected with party in that
country ; and, therefore, he considered he was fully jus-
tified in asserting that corruption had prevailed. It was
a strange circumstance, if only cursorily looked at, that the
Tories, who generally opposed the government, were chosen
to do their work, in this instance, and fur what reason?
Because the government was going in direct opposition to
the people. These men, who acquitted the libeller of the
Marquis of Wellesley—the first viceroy Ireland ever had
who had ventured to grapple with the ascendancy party—
were ready enough to bring in a verdict of guilty against
Mr. Barrett, as virtuous a man, and as ezemp,ary a citi-
zen as ever lived. They found him guilty, and " encum-
bered" their verdict with a recommendation to mercy.
He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment,
to pay a fine of 1001., and to enter into heavy sureties
That was It ish mercy.—(Hear and a laugh.) That wat
the mercy of the present liberty-loving Government. , In
ttie reigns of George 111. and George IV., under Tory
Governments (lie spoke of a period of sixty-eight years),

there bad been forty prosecutions in Great Britain for poll',
tical libels ; since 1830 to the present day, a
three years, the Whigs being during the time in poseferr,
there had been thirteen prosecutions, in Ireland alone,. ii)
iprotliiatiicda I libels.—( Hear, eabry, hear.)
Whig Thirteen
Gove
liberty-loving Whigs had done this, and, in the dale of
Mr. Barrett, had not merely imprisoned and fined ki,,o ,
and required him to find sureties, but had actually ta .'
~
his bread away.—(Hear, hear.) He charged the Govern- f.
ment with nullifying the Jury 3„That i'
ration in certain cases, and should therefore Move.-- 0
the :
the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury o
obits .r..
trial of Richard Barrett is calculated to affect the P. ,_
confidence in the pure administration of justice in Ire.lanulii
and this house therefore entertains the hope that, in_rllo. +,.
secs;igoinadlyedsutppor;ed. n.
future political prosecutions, Roman Catholics and 1'
rota
testants will be allowed indiscriminately to serve 0 juro ,
~
in Ireland." 0, V
An How. 1111C31111E11, whose name we could not learn,
• tea • k
Mr. LITTLETON had been greatly disappoin , ~, •
never had he heard a case so unnecessarily introduced,hie , •
What were the - siniP
case? prnromseecouttiienThoi
On the 11th of May, accordebiyngPrteolienen( tif:iinte.egtia)t.e°dPtbtioel
rom
4gansradnfotdhrpetandneeeflep,naadnnaedni .
h'fs,a,
ry agentintrgi
pi.assedT
strike the jury, when, on the mere application of de-
verser,
duty
and solely for his convenience, the
fared until the 15th. On that day the Crown
been shown to the traverser throughout this roceedl:
and he defied, the hon. mover to state an instance in whir:
.n. , '
an obj coon had been made by the traverser, and not
gaol.
lowed by she Crown. It was the duty of the Crown
xi
licitor to strike off names from the grand panel dour t°,.. 4
48 by 12 ; and if he had struck off Roman Catholics, it i
was not because they were of that religion, but for
vote;
other reasons—reasons which be (Mr. Littleton) darereasvatve !..,,
were substantial and valid ones. Hondenied that tinheia,
the ",
overheassembled,
the slightest ground for censure Aird.
the jury seas struck under the "Id system,
but that the partY .
was not made for this case--Hear)(--
other indi- ..
Crown solicitor ; and it must be recollecte ,
on his defence had just the same chance as any
bad
greatest
rridod
t7tve:et na
snit i
be thees,r obtained
tgyb
l thes
vidual.—(Hear, hear.) He very much doubted what
_oi.
been stated by the hon. and learned mover, as W tbef
.trii
prosecutions in a period of 68 years. He thought
thatt il .
he rectillected ,
impression erroneous, especially when
under the Government immediately preceding Lord Grey °I;
no less than five prosecutions for libels upon it had heed
instituted
Littleton
iabtryhg Sur
argument
reitJtai
if
sodee ever
e rrSetratia
or
nee tt.
was Theon e bwouhni.o
la, nedwa'(!ic:lleelbidroaceeritettr
wry)
gentleman said, that if ever there was a libel which shoo'
not member
being pen of awho,
hive gone unnoticed, this was the one. DroW be 0.1,f.
thKtehrgamrtaarlitdhpoaungehi ;,
prosecution, this was the libel, because it came born the
~,:
then took such me
cwoanitirsolled opportunity of effecting his ends within tin
supported tueni--•
efainnPsgaoar‘lb:talenoefoinodflohroewwrnstahrod had
the
ma
freeb Yaar:dlll'.ll-
'1
sistent with the peace and security of any well regulated • -
ttiabtewekhrienneean( erlitaiaedbvneebtis yl whollyu thelThe
irbi stated'yise peoplen:sCilegislature
on L
.Are
thatel e society.—(Cheers.)
— ( h ewasers . the Why,hostility
safetyo f England
either
fortowards
life
r lreland,p tfoundao property,
earutt
ydl
the
,dahetaei entertained
el
was no
lnega I°l3ger
.'
dweisleorvterdiedtothbee sctaiugsmeatbizj
so would any jury in this country. He repelled the at'
tack which had been made upon them, and he did 0 1,•
because they were educated, Moral, and honourable Wear IC
bees of society ; and he had no hesitation in saying, thett l)
had he been upon that jury, he should fully and cordial,/ ~
have concurred in the verdict which they found it digit
ii
them,
tLLif shaeidhatdhabtetetnwornigthhtish
jounr.ygbenetwleotild°
r,11:
duty in this instance to record.—(Hear.)
vdiltrco.oldn°ct.urred in their verdict. Now, he (Mr. "°°: 1-+
hhaa
nell) was mile that the right hon. gentleman vvould o°'
have done so, as he was suie that he was incapable ef Itii7,i ;) .
co ,
feting his oath. This he would assert that no Oa°
have found such a verdict in such a case without violatig ' 1,
It ,
his oath from party principles and political motives. r
was said that any honest jury would have found a gate
: menptvbhoaei
ionrisdt
nbeyi
etac.
alistni.
nfdsr
Wasii
a,
v,
ri
n't.pi:ai uGhiintytuibi,asti
Guinness
eti
wnnli%
,s,
teeeaestninsid,)
cduiachtwientdajdeiiuirntremsoyni
ttahtrshhnaTaeo,,d,we.uf an,
vtbamhie
enfe,deKnvhsßooegaosnunnefrnelksyes:ucoi
titt.l:
etuhfridruriy?tet..ik respects.opr ape
ds, ..7t,al:
drl
14}.:.
vtheredyiewtewrehebnotshu .cohlmuer:mwpereeacsbtareudckinoffre
house require stronger evidence of the efforts of the Oen l'
evidence was
to be found in the striking off the la .'-
every Catholic on the list. One of them vitie A'r. Viii-
.'
propertY
Liam Morphy, a gentleman who possessed more
than the entire twelve who sat upon the )01' Wsehre'a
they wished to convince the people of Ireland that a .--2.
stifle 0.
Isla parliament would do justice, were they to ,
inquir '• y which the circumstances of the case so strorire
called for ? fhe names of tbe other two Catholics weeer
near k, Didt,:;bof:
.Ite:.,
Mr. John O'Brien and Mr. Stephen Grehan, all,tbrr
most respectable gentlemen, and all three, he Inig`i_.,'" e-ts
who had in Many instances and in many retro, ii.
dissented from his (Mr. O'Conneil's) line of p° most
;
Thus the Government strike off four or five of the.,:heo r,
respectable and independent men on the pannel, an" ' , '../
they were to be told that tbe jury had been fairlythaeo
lected. Now who, he wou.d ask, was the foreman °I boo ,-,,
jury? Dlr. Long, the coachmaker, a gentleart:r or
o o namen,nt hadof
tbeenbeGlioevaerrdnotni
ebnetf,,,wrehion thathdd
tahkoeunse.....3 active
a 01°st et
part in a not very distant election against the Govern:cite is
turning them
tn Perrinou t. ai:
Such
ufloatr‘tvya,. andthe whofore hmaadiusaurg.cweeoeditiler3:o:
the next upon the jury ? Mr. Isaac Hynes,
who acquitted the Morning Star of a most fright° 'this , '
atrocious private libel upon the Marquis Wellesley. b„f f
Alr. Isaac Hynes must either have believed the trutoch ev,
that libel or he must have violated bis oath, and Ye
„t ;Able t.
were the first two names on this honest and lon°"" it,
jury, as it was called. There were eight others uce for,
all of them corporators. Now, he need not appea, that ~,
ther than to what had taken place in the course ot_..b.
evening, to show the house that the corporation of Vausid s,
lin and he (Mr. O'Connell) had been uniforfnli
eo, i
strongly fit!: yoppo
Dublinseidn tsopettaec hofotber.
them, a
nHde
ihroamd comeie in a° Memo.
choly incident in his life to that of tbe
and triumphant—namely, his return it'nhrriEnety°lii:/(slatutranb;Bl:lisit.leisraP‘g.tchorf°-.erirar' i;,:
e
bad not been an occurrence between him and the 7:gem; 1!
thin of Dublin in which he had not beep •
and yet it was out of such a corporation t°LiPePiu;dithadThheeerne . f.: '
selected to try whether his letter had been a libel • .0)0 ;-:
were two Scotchmen on the jury, certainly respee,,.b,
,:,
gentlemen ; but why should individuals unconnected tv_Pr, fl
the country be on such an occasion elected for such a Pii i t,
use? -One of them, he had to remark, was a rnernber°l
Pelli
be (Mr. O'Connell) would fearless
had been always opposed, and
thehuthepesaKeyantihdei Kildare-street
datprhel
aeitdse reetrhneeaeattki,
nifsSaa
nioi ch.
wiojeontt
jury
l,uydrt o
theyi whichor ityets he_ (Ai r .
bareo' 0111.0°..: , .
~
selected to try this quesion, and in support of their WM4
they heard an Engiish gentleman of high character arrteebis ' ,
that publication • a libel. The right hon. gentleman had r"„„fs. '...'
milinaccurately stated the tenor of it to the house; there_iyie,
would
correctnessn eayswerer kteb
a.:it i-ilieit: • ' 'L'i
;
maynonehad
passage in it that resembled what the right hon. geePos
read
teddrepresented as its purport to the house. 11.4,0 ,
a mit that there was a passage in the letter, in " wee ,
should say—because if he said. it et of ,
he could not believe it
justice could be done to Ireland until she had ambers.)rt' nit
'1
me boo
~
her own.—(Cheers from some of the Irish
would adhere to that statement. Ireland never OUliitnegic
`substantial justice done her until she recovered her f_d°overal .4
deserve the title of a al3..____e teat ,
~
legislature. The learned gentleman here went throtign, bof
of the topics discussed in the letter for publishing vibt..,coe ef • !
defendant had been convicted, and contended that
,',1,04 1
them could be construed into a libel, nor any thing apPr";„ the ~
to a libel. In that letter he (Mr. O'Connell) called our. 1.,:i
Whitefeet to cease from their domestic fights and brotoosps
they could have justice done to themselves and their advice • ~;
ing them that it was only by peaceable and constitution afoot;
eh •
nate country. Was it libellous to give them such , Den- ' •
He had in vain endeavoured to extract from the King by tbe ,• '
what portion of this publication was deemed libellous
lotion6l ~
Court. He had asked the judges there, by Inaki!t.g,„3o 0.4,„1
for an arrest of judgment, to lay down tlieir ono- the.- ,' ~,
oofe tlhreelapnudhltihcaattiontheiyn
hadilet
what part of the publication was deemed a libel Situ
''.
lie had already stated what were the two greale fee. 4"
but rill ' ',,,,
domestic legislature, and to convince them that They eO.ll-1 • , V
by legal, peaceable, and constitutional union to sante.
achieve that object. Now, though he would adlnit„,„ be o°,l'
question—namely,hinto eta°peslicr-7,,:1-o-:
of t e expressions in the letter might be considered that`- the', ,
—(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—yet he would maintain oe hsm i
was nothing in it that could be construed into a libel* „ of °if.: ' fie`
;
just said he had endeavoured to obtain the oPi'd°ct fIP" , ',4
judges of the King's Bench on the point as to what P 3.• of
„.!
letter was libellous ; but they would give him no answe,r. d that ' -•.t.
merely said that the jury found the publication a libel, `ri, Knell . • t, '
they were satisfied with the verdict. He (Mr. o,Conne',, tnaP'
when he was writing that letter—(bear)—as well aid37„4 tile
that it would be prosecuted if the government cou ',riovi•
• means of subjecting it to a prosecution, and with the '`o9 be •`;
ledge which he possessed on the subject, a' nd fully asOlresere at •,
was of the extreme latitude of the law of libel, he Wa9
,ossiig
the time he wrote that letter that no government could IvicrioP
i have the hardihood to prosecute it. Thii was l'is,c°rosPect '
at that time. There was, besides, just at that petiou A foetal,' 1,
of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Stanley), the then 5
-••••

I

1
1

had
Ilarend (under whose government, he would remark, there
"ad been more prosecutions against the press than under any
Poe,e,.?eding one) being removed-from that office. He (Mr.
:"nnell), therefore, thought at the time that the chances
ine::e_ against government subjecting that publication to prose...
444. He had already stated to the house the composition
°f the jury that had tried it. There was his (Mr. O'Connell's)
1 ertried sittry of his personal enemies--(Hear, hear)—tried
by a furs, eve-Tn-' rY man of Whom had been all their lives opposed
tthaelle-st—res(Rear.) The jury was selectedfrom the panel after
Who struck P
tectable men had been struck off it. The individual
jury on this occasion was, be it remembered,
ahofficer of t he
he Crown, removable at pleasure. Who was the
, 'eer that struck the grand panel from which that jury had
4 been ,
h n D"'"'en ? The high sheriff of the city of Dublin. Now,.
ine iftt,lemen must know that no man could be high sheriff
prnt,„';`,eltY of Dublin who did not pledge himself to uncom.
n,,,..-"s'ng opposition to his catholic countrymen. In the 207
""'es on the grand panel, there were to be found only three
ratholies
that exist • Now, when the catholic wealth and respectability
represented in Dublin were taken into account, was that a fairs
itithtion of it ? There was a large host of corporators
and ,e.Panl—rnany of them had been discharged as insolvents,hen.
genti"aq of them had been bankrupts. If, as the right
cal.
1 etdoeMaa had told them, the publication in question was
" "ed to disturbance he (Mr. O'Con.
nen, Promote sedition and .
9 orritewas. not the person that would have written. it. He had
1 on then lt,--Certainly not under any strong feelings of delicacy
l
1.. subject to which it referred, for he had no right to feel
neat tl
,hatg
oi:e had written that letter in the conscientioufsldtis;t
!lie then, ,L_ duty which he owed to his country. He e
de `"" Madness of slavery on hini, and, he had said so.
t. felt
di„ that that house in passing the Coercion Bill—in
' t'oen''stii"g. a Measure that deprived Ireland of the benefits of the
41 ii-,°,,t1°11 ',Pon the tittle-tattle of the right
.hon. gentleman,theni
the
he'n'ti statements adduced by him without his allowingh
reit, he efits of a committee to investigate and refutet them—he
the
mere
I,;rePeated, that the house, in taking every thinguaeh
an
hitsole hi'd of the right hon. gentleman, and passing. s
to hei as iceasure had perpetrated a gross and crying injustice
member He (Mr. O'Connell) should not deserve to
.beenaal
geve,,, °I that house, or a subject of a constant.'
eA .lnent •. feel highly indignant at such
~Altiet , if he did not
~ en, • He would now appeal to every Englisht gen-
vielia, ' who valued the liberties of his country, . odsaey
'ilthswtaild be his feelings, if an Irish parliament, with vfer-
.lmglan°,,f,..tt Composed of Irishmen, had passed such. .a law
the pas:, `---(riear ) Would not his blood boil within him at
and ZR oi Su it easure ? He (Mr. O'Connell) wrote,
It ~:"a'lled that letter under a full conviction of its truth.
first psil;!bliThed in both countries. It was said that it
was
bas 504r,1,1t,!(1 in England, but such was not the fact.
"as sure that he had not taken that precaution, for. of theishae
l'iltilie . that no man would have dreamt of prosecuting such
Was iatti!,," i 4 England. It was first published in Ireland.
tae,, c,'"st, then, when it was prosecuted there, that the very
sary 0.1-eNsed to him have been put upon jury—t
of the n ante of whom should
were violent opponentsthe of the policy
'erY :esel't government, selected for that jury—ht had
'eat a de,,,!it°, oPposed them inwere the elections, and who now
the
kv,e, P.(ation over here to endeavour to obtain *oral
el
illaeheg''ra re,erSai of their order for the dismissal of Co
.ona.
tine thr tii the commission of the peace ? Did. tlieynn
i 4 tauaat- toeir carrying the Coercion Bill—that their indulging
theta ors gainst of Ireland, tende.d to convince
Laiintt• the benefitand utility of the connexion of the
i.,--itta 'es?,, Its own opinion was, that if those. who. wished
ad-
'‘ce t'ot°'"e connexion had not done their duty in giving
!'''t beteople of Ireland, they (that house) would at pre-
4rit). a dreamng them to separation. They might have atmlea;
4,0111:H1st this motion, as no doubt they would
—ba
be
'atis4d t S.4l3pose that by such a decision the public wouldad
(t'graeeevilth a verdict discreditable to the governmfen
in
se-
-oerai
ef `ni to the administration ofjustice.—(Cheers ro
kr ,r,the Irish members )
It'n n. -`4NLEY I ree with the hon. and learned gen. tie-
i 11
ii.ut-ciciPP,tlssiate.Lthheeimsaenmbaieiglr.nfosedr Drogheda, that Mr. Barrett is an
man, but by whom has he been
r, ',., Net by the government—(cheers)—but by those—
het.
i°,,:hs'?="TNEL L was here heard to say to those around him,
kr e.„'" alone."
kr, ~. [AXLE .
to ~ Y (with great vehemence)—l presume that I
kr. n, let alone" in this house—(lmmense cheers.)
'1
e tit attlere.,°,)NlsTELL--I rise to order.—(Loud cries of " Or-
t);( the I,jkIeTLEY.--1 say, Sir, that the disorderly interruption
a ivhi -ri• and learned gentleman is not becoming the house sit ~....(001 that bon. and learned gentleman has the honour to
elul i trheat Cheering ) I say that when I am discharging my
sPeakitln --e face of the house,and the country, and when I am
totint_ g before the hon. and learned gentleman and the
vo rY, as 1 trust ' 4 b , I shall always speak, without fear or hesita-
le ' Imre is ar s face, I need not the permission of the hon. and
he /bedl t Titteni
an, nor his audible exclamation that
I should
I Ina..e_ a °ne," to obtain a hearing for any observations which
N1;::°---n,sider it MY duty to make.—(Cheers.)
order•;,,l) C,CINELL—I rise, Sir, to order. If I am out of
t
bac. in :rat t
„ f, - arn about to state, you, Sir, will at once
.correc
tight horn. - '`' explain the reason of the observation which the
to two
raegmeritten,an ~
.ttributed to me. It was addressed
'Peaking to e—
near me. In consequence of both of them
to the_
.° eatrn the same time, I was obliged to raise my voice
Irish Z:mis,aY, Let him alone."—(" Hear, hear," from several
If I used a e",
and ironical cheers from the rest of the house.)
man
to statn3:
hlaatddaressed •
to
I call
other expression, I call on the right hon. gentle-
on him toe stt.atelfw
tended as a private communicatioannyi observation him, .
kid, from the cause I have two
was solely in-
oice in order to enable them to
-0 two gentlemen near me ;
r4Y Y • •
tlillete,inShaTenaArNaLudE.
Ira
1- —au' gf hearl was obliged to raise
ht.h)e house is satisfiedm% sure I am.—
Ng I have heard the hon. and learned
k the in his address to the house, with patience. I only
of
.., e gentlemen opposite to extend to me a similar degree
adeiPratienee for the few word-, which I shalt have occasion to
ill, :I to the house. I say again, Sir, that Mr. Barrett is. an.
not'', Man,— but I say again that if he has been i.ll-usedthatosies
Ivii -Y his Nlajestv's government.—(Cheers.) It isby
follow
41, ', All] • "
~leir alvare of the legal consequences that would
full acts leave him to suffer cheers) —who,
them—(lncreased cheers ,
1 e°l's . hon. and learned gentleman was, that a
verdict c)ous as the .
lat'on of the law, leaves
the On °t. a jury awaited such a vio i .
' 4011 ' • • h t redicament from which one
Word
„, cuate publisher in t a p .
ld have re
hi, "L that avowal he has made to-night wou . lieved
v ',While he sagaciously secures himself from sharing that
',.."(6ahee of the law which he had himself originally provoked.s
tight cheering.) The hon. and learned gentleman has this
4,4" i Proved that he clearly anticipated the punishment which
Iseii tad Nlr. Barrett, for he has endeavoured to makethe house
hi _ere that the nature of the tribunal before which he was
4:t. was such that he could not possibly escape, and yet, with
a p‘st eristic prudence, he has allowed Mr. Barrett to undergo
16,42 ishment from which b • ply "ving the notice he has
here to fight " ' y sim-
- gi l' h r of the
ettet,„._ - I am the author and pub is e
an..., lie would have saved him.—(Hear, hear.) Mr..
is h3,_t I repeat, has certainly been an ill.used man, but it
41,4,2 e honnUrable and learned gentleman that he has been tleal;',' (Loud cheers.) The honourable and learned gen-
tegrets lelogises for his want of caution in this case ; he
liesitioa firat he had not sufficient caution to have this pub-
Ninry eat rnade in England. I will ask the house and the
\:,l,iieh the ow that another man is suffbring in prison for that
9 the bet'• and learned has done, whether, of
le accusations gentleman.
h hon and
, arned tool "8 that may be brougbt against t e •
-aailon i anian, he can be justly upbraided with a want of
tiernark
tellsn this case
„_. ?—(Cheers.) The hon. and learned gen-
earPerators 48 Log this case came for trial before a jury of
vaYs oppcLat'd adds—" You know that they have been al-,
;arlioratet;'` tome" Why did he not add, that they were
I.:the glorin„Wharn he had, by joining with them in pledging
-, the b_ ", and immortal memory," thought to conciliate
'heer,e7esit and lowest of political purposes ?—(lmmense
Rette on betweenkow nothing of the negotiations that may have
all thn him and other parties ; I have felt it my duty
ittSps i huest to watch the hon. and learned gentleman in all his
not deemhi' Private political intrigues of this description 1
itlerean it necessary to mind. The hon. and /earned
that irYB that the libel was not published in England first,
..9 first . was latbash in both countries. I now learn for
hbei tittle f.i. • ed
man that the
• , thd uot a' eon the hon. and learned gentle . , . ,
~lno,ce., P,PEa thous first in England, for I really.betl e ea up to
hi ivs cOuntry.
n:pirilej4ns,
st'atte first appearance had been in
with such an
ablic:iioon on inground. s why the government, with
ution for the
ti?, herte my ,th`sis
liibnedl,.did not insbtu
1n E ngland. We felt that its Publics-
'aischi so utterly insignificant and destitute of the power
,11
the ef---thas it was
so.nie
making
of any impression
Paper
(altillnds „the
People incapable
England, and that owing to the
141 selis e 7'rue Su • ° and learned member
'CA -eted .. l's) which the hon.•
treiti 4414
_°,i-, the vehicle for its publication being of
have been so ex-
anti ,!Ili' sti,,,,:l.r.culation, its diffusion
.mustfar
prosecuting it,
Itaiiilasattie"'eiZtlttihere was. no. nec.essitay
prosecution for libel
never oth Wtaald oni,..ence of. instituting
that note which it would
side
of erw ise ,_.:ene tnbrusl; it into
But on, the other
oia,, the„ wa,,,,,"_ attained in this country. .
There, as every
(~,Isoows, ti-s the case was widely different.
,-,e'"Y, which' influence, I say most unfortunately for the
in Nssion.
a" the hon, and learned gentleman possesses over
utt;" co - feelin I rendered ths Publma-
, cipstati„ . gs of the peop ~ .
4, unraoefase ,•,,,,..1 mno. cuous as it was in England, pregnant
h there was no
, cf 'pi): ,,noon
hon.
in Ireland. For thoaung
was the author
10tY 41:81" °f the on. and learned. gentleman
4440 n,
.4 in 4,4_ letter in question, yet .
it
was known by
rho,
.14 it pr,,44,1 who read it that the advice and the sug-
,k
to ictate, "teeded from the hop. 40 iganseci geptleulaP,
have ere as im lien b ed in Ireland as he would
ioar, ilea their,
0, P. i y o ey
'eased t t..) 4., "eYed in this house and in this country —I
~., 'a have o,' says that the trial took place shortly after
,n,,-;alllain
of l' connexion with that country, and he appetat7
4,1-0 4Tellt that've delay. Now it was not the fault o.f e
that :' k4°W' benttat trial Was not brought to a speedy issue.
ly of Z'' i111t,,,d, er than the hon. and learned gentleman
;al "thigin 'Me" Wasthe defendant in the
quibbl 8 the
" ..
thrown by
id those quibble wag res„ "1" t 4 trial, 'and that eyery possible
'trial of aee'n'ed
tCd to by the hen. and learned gentleman
it. ~ with him i th e in order to postpone
terornent 4.
...ne hen n e cas
t the istinetly Wi,.and learned gentleman c.harges the
it
il3urpos,..
of eel; ' having packed the jury in this case
l'eN3ll beg
hit Pardotivietiag him,—no,- not for convicting
(A whom h
-e left t ,---for the purpose of convicting the
5h0w...8 aria ehp__ . 0 bear the punishment -of his faults.—
inen," that no ne;nlL) Now, My right. hon. friend has clearly
, I.a There were ch.a!ge is sustainable against the Govern-
P rt of the cro originally 207 names on the panel. On
list wn not a s'
part. , Was redue__, . Ingle name was objected to until
,48,ruck 0„ a ends by 160, leaving only 48. Then each
v,-„,_,_ reqUisite nutehmere alternately, in order to reduce the list
,)ioner that an the
It was done precisely in the same
host, jUst as the h ion committee is selected in this house.
on• and learnetl gentleman complains that

some names that he wished to retain on the list were struck off,,
might an election agent complain, and with just as much right,
that some names he wished to have on a committee up stairs
had beei; struck off. No one would think of making such a
complaint, still less would any gentleman come down to this
house, and endeavour for such a reason to cast a stain upon a
committeeup stairs, asserting that it would not fairly and ho-
nestly investigate the subject to come before it. Twelve names
in this case were struck off by each party, in order to reduce
the list to twenty-four, and then because some names that he
wished to retain were struck off, the learned gentleman makes
that circumstance a ground for attacking the conduct of the
government. and ina;.eaching the verdict of the jury. Now, I
ask the House of Commons in its fairness—l ask the people of
England in their candour—to say whether this is an accusation
that deserves, I will not say to be con=i,tered, but even to be
entertained for a moment ?—,Clie2rs.) The hon. and learned
gentleman says that this letter was no libel, and he tells us that
he wrote it in the positive discharge of a conscientious duty.
The point as to libel or no libel was cautiously and calmly con.
sidered by the law officers of the crown, not only in Ireland but
in England. The case was brought under their deliberate con-
sideration. They were desired to look at it in all its bearings,
with an intimation not to select for prosecution anything with
regard to which there would be the slightest doubt as to the
verdict of a jury. With these instructions this letter was re
ferred to the law officers of the crown for their consideration,
and it was the opinion of every one of those so consulted that
a grosser or more disgraceful libel never polluted the pages of
the public press. The hon. and learned gentleman says
that no honest man would convict for this publication as a libel.
He admits, however, that there were certain passages rather
harsh in it—those passages, I suppose, in which he describes
this house, though I recollect his having employed still less
courteous terms in painting us on another occasion.—(A laugh.)
He tells the people of Ireland in this letter that this house is
animated with an intense hatred to Ireland,—that England and
Englishmen entertain a deadly hostility to that country, and
that it was idle to expect justice from such a Parliament. To
be sure he introduces the usual advice about peace and obe-
dience to the law and good order, and all that sort of thing,
which so frequently in the learned gentleman's addresses ac.
companies the most exciting provocatives to mischief. He calls
upon " his good friends," his " sweet friends," and begs them
not to be stirred up—
" To such a sudden flood of mutiny."—(Cheers.)
He tells them to bear with the yoke, though it galls them to the
neck—to submit to the injustice, though it be crying and appa-
rent—to bear with the oppression, though it is most grievous
and burdensome, but in no case to violate the law.—(Hear,
hear.) Such are the recommendations, and so accompanied,
which the hon. gentleman gives to his countrymen in this let-
ter—recommendations which he has so often addressed to
them with similar accompaniments. Now, I put it to any
man of common sense in the country- whether he believes that
the object of such a pi oduction Wits to enforce obedience to
the law er to the Government?—(Loud cheers.) The right
hon. gentleman then proceeded to say that it was said that
this letter was well calculated to inculcate obedience to the
laws, though it might be harsh in some of its terms, but
he (Mr. Stanley) hesitated not to say, that no man—no
honest man, could lay his hand upon his heart, and deny
that it was a libel.—(Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned
gentleman had also complained of the jury, and particularly
that upon it were two Scotchmen,—men who it was urged were
unconnected with the country, but who, he (Mr. Stanley) must
add, were not imbued with Irish prejudices—(Hear, hear)—
to the exclusion of two Roman Catholics; and the hon. and
learned gentleman had asked the house whether it could con.
ceive so gross a case of injustice, so gross an instance of par-
tiality, or so complete a violation of every fair principle, as to
have on the jury two Scotch Presbyterians, without one Roman
Catholic to try him, Mr. Daniel O'Connell—no, he (Mr. Stan-
ley) begged pardon—to try Mr. Barrett for this libellous pub-
lication.—(Cheers and laughter.) In the first instance, the
hon. and learned gentleman, in November last, while endea-
vouring before the court to obtain a postponement of the trial,
had then also complained of the manner in which the jury had
been selected; and the question had been solemnly argued be-
fore the Court of King's Bench, and the objection raised was
set aside by the Court, on the ground that no legal objection
had been offered,—that the charge of partiality, made merely on
belief and suggestion on the part of the hon. and learned gentle-
man, was completely refuted, and that on the affidavits before
the Court the Crown solicitor stood fully exculpated. Such, in
common with the full bench, was the decision of the learned
Chief Justice, on whom the hon. and learned member for Dub-
lin had passed so glowing an eulogium the other day, and ad-
mitted tha against that learned individual no exception could
be taken. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had said
that no honest man could have found the publication in ques-
tion to have been a libel. He (Mr. Stanley) must, however,
remind the house that the Court upon the trial pronounced no
opinion upon the publication, but left it to the jury to draw
their own inference ; but when the question as to the matter
being a libel or not was raised before the full bench, and when
it became the duty of the Court to pronounce an opinion upon
it, that opinion, without a doubt in the mind of any one mem-
ber of the court, was, that not only was the publication a libel,
but also that they concurred fully in the verdict of the jury.—
(Hear, hear.) Nay, he (Mr. Stanley) was convinced that a
very few passages of the publication (with which he most as-
suredly should not now trouble the house) 'would on perusal
satisfy every unbiassed and impartial mind that the jury and th•
Court had come to a just and proper conclusion, and that the
letter in question was, as alleged in the information, a wicked
and seditious libel—calculated to produce the mischievous
effects which wese attributed to it. Whatever, however, was
the character of the publication, the hon. and learned gentle-
man had avowed himself the author, but had allowed another
individual to bear the brunt; and though he had declaimed
against the unfairness of the trial, he (Mr. Stanley) thought it
did not mark much of generosity in the hon. and learned gen-
tleman's permitting another person to bear the responsibility.
(Hear, hear.) As to the fairness of the trial, he would add
that, on the part of the Crown, not a single objection had been
taken on striking the jury to any name upon the panel, whilst
on the part of the defendant 160 names were objected to before
the list of 48 jurors was completed. Notwithstanding the de-
claration of the hon. and learned gentleman that no honest man
could concur in the opinion that the publication was libellous
in its character, he (Mr: Stanley) had shown to the house that
not only the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, but also in
England, the jury who had tried the case and the judges who
had passed sentence, all agreed in the opinion that no man
could read the letter and not feel that it was a wicked and se-
ditious libel. He himself had no doubt upon the subject—
nay, the only doubt he entertained was, whether the party now
suffering was the individual who really ought to suffer for its
publication.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. SHELL—The question was not so. The question was
not whether Mr. Barrett was suffering justly or unjustly, but
whether the jury was packed or not.—(Oh, oh, oh I) The
question was not to be decided by theenthusiastic gesticulations
of hon. gentlemen, but by facts.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman, the secretary for the colonies, had com-
menced with an attack on the hon. and learned member for
Dublin, and with that attack he had concluded. He said Mr.
Barrett was ill-used. True, he had been ill-used, but by
whom ? Not by the hon. member, but by the government.—
(Hear, hear.) The statute of 1815 was dug up from its obli-
vion, to be a formidable engine of persecution. The noble
lord (Althorp) had, with a candour which reflected the highest
credit, and was worthy of him, stated, that the secretary for
Ireland had written to the Stamp-office, three weeks alter the
passing of the sentence, respecting it. Thus a statute was
awakened from its dormancy, to persecute and prostrate.
Mr. Barrett was an ill-used man ; he admitted it ; but he was
Mused and persecuted by the authorities of the state. Much
had been said about the hon. and learned member for Dublin
leaving another to bear the brunt of his battle. Now he
(Mr. Sheil) had the honour of being counsel for Mr. Barrett,
and he felt himself called upon to state, that the individual
whose name was appended to the letter had tendered himself
three times to stand in his shoes if such was deemed necessary.
—(Hear.) He gave credence to the right bon. secretary's in-
tentions to do justice towards Ireland, but he questioned his
capability, and it was not to him, but to some other members
of the cabinet, that he looked for any good that might be done
towards his country. The hon. and learned member then
cited a case which occurred in 1822, in which no catholic
was allowed to be on a jury, and likewise two cases which
occurred in 1832, in which there was not a single catholic a
juryman in either. It was also alleged, as the right hon. secre-
tary wellknew, that in a number of trials which had taken place
with respect to tithes, the juries were exclusively composed of
Protestants, He begged to call the attention of the house to
two trials which took place in 1833—the one was the King v.
Welsh, and the other the King v. Barrett. In the first of these
cases there was not more than one Catholic on the jury, and
there was not one single Catholic in the case of the King v.
Barrett. He would now go back to facts, and he would assert,
without fear of contradiction, that in this case the jury had been
packed. In the list of 48 jurymen there were only four Roman
Catholics, the truth of which the Secretary for the Colonies
had not denied. The pannel was originally composed of 704
jurymeni.the majority of whom were Roman Catholics ; and it
had been asserted that the officer of the Crown went through
207 of those names, and, according to the statement of the
right hon. gentleman opposite, no objection had been started
to them on the part of the Crown. He begged the attention of
the house to this cardinal incident of the case ; namely, that
they found no objection, and that the clerk of the Crown selected
his list of 48 names. The right hon. secretary had said, with
great plausibility, that the solicitor of the Crown did not object
to the clerk's list. Of course not ; there was a reason for
that. The right hon. gentleman had said that the clerk
had stopped at the 207th name ; but if he had gone on
further, he would have found immediately after on the list ten
Roman Catholics. There was.the list in his hand, and it
would be seen, upon examining it, that the first names were
those of members of parliament, aldermen and common
council of . Dublin. This was a proof that perspns were
placed on the list according to their rank. There was the
pannel before them, and if they dared carry it before a corn.
mittee of inquiry, all his assertions about it would be found to
be correct. He said that the panel was in the hands of the
right hon. gentleman opposite, and the right hon. gentleman
would see that after the 207th name, the names of several Ro-
man Catholics followed. The right hon. gentleman would see
that the sheriff of the city of Dublin had framed, as he before
stated, the list according to civic rank, and it was notorious
that the clerk of the 'crown took jurymen from that Bit accoril.
ing to his orders from the castle. Even the 48 jurymen that
were chosen went through a species of accommodating filtra-
tion on the part of crown, since even that portion of the list
was sent to the solicitor of the crown in order that it might
receive his approbation. But the truth was, that the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Littleton) was more conversant with
the potteries than the situation of Ireland. What did the clerk

of the crown do afterwards ? Why, he took the list of 48, and
finding on it the names of Roman Catholics, he struck them
out. What objections had the clerk of the crown to those
names ? He could have none—save that they were Catholics_
since one of the persons struck out was a bank director, and
one of the Catholic gentlemen who had signed the resolution
against the repeal of the union. It was a strange inconsis.
tency on the part of the government, to show themselves at
one time the prosecutors of a judge before a British parlia-
ment, and at another time, as in the present instance, the de-
fenders of the packers of juries.
Lord ALTHORP held in his hand the affidavit of Mr.
Kemmis, which had been read in Court, in order to show that
what had been said about the mode of selecting the jury was
not correct. He alluded to this as it was the oath of Mr.
Kemmis as to what took place relative to this matter, and
when the affidavit was submitted to the judge, he decided upon
it as the hon. and learned gentleman had stated. The noble
lord then read certain portions of the affidavit, by which it ap-
peared that the deponent swore that he first attended for the
purpose of striking a jury list—they then adjourned, and on
the last day deponent again attended, when forty-eight jurors
were selected. He was asked whether he would make any
objections, and deponent said that he would not make any objet.
tion to any of the persons called, although, on the part of tra-
verser, numerous objections were made, so that 207 names
were called before the officer pricked a single name ; and depo_
nest further said, that all those objections were not valid, or
legal, yet they were yielded to. Now, continued the noble
lord, if anything could be a proof of the mode of selecting this
jury, this affidavit must be one. Must it not be admitted as a
correct statement ? It was made on an affidavit, read in the
court, and liable, if it contained false statements, to the penal-
ties of that court. It appeared to him from this statement, that
the mode pursued could not be called anything like packing a
jury. Besides, the persons accused of packing this jury made
no objections to the names on the list, whilst the opposite
party, as pretty clearly appeared, did make several objections.
As he knew of his own knowledge the facts but imperfectly,
he thought it right to read the affidavit to the house.
Mr. O'CONNELL—But the affidavit does not say that the
objections were yielded to.
Lord ALTHORP again read that part of the affidavit which
says " the objections were not valid and legal, yet the names
were not retained." Does the hon. and learned member say
they were retained ?
Mr. O'CONNELL—I do; I say they were retained.
Lord ALTHORP recommended reading the affidavit, down
to the words " yielded to." The noble lord was prevented
from proceeding further by several exclamations on the part of
the hon. members, that they were satisfied, according to the
affidavit, that the names objected to by the traverser were not
retained.

Mr. ROEBUCK was desirous of putting one question on
this matter to the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Littleton)
—namely, whether the 48 jurymen chosen were selected from
within the first 207 names on the list, without any objection
on the part of the accused ? If such was the fact, he consi.
dered that the present case fell to the ground.
Mr. LITTLETON distinctly understood that such was the
case.

Mr. HUME said a great deal of personality had been made
use of in the course of the debate, instead of following up and
explaining the real question. It really seemed as if hon. gen-
tlemen opposite wished to blink the question altogether. The
true question was, had justice been fairly done ? He confessed
that it appeared to him that it had not, since there was not one
Catholic on the jury, while it seemed that there was a majority
of Catholics on the list, .

Mr. LITTLETON begged to say, in way of explanation,that
it was clear that the traverser's attorney went on objecting until
he had obtained 48 names, with which he was satisfied. If he
wished to object to 100 names more, he would not have been
stopped.
Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR agreed with the hon. member
for Middlesex, that the right hon. secretary for the colonies
had rather indulged in personality, and that he had wandered
away from the question altogether. The shouts of applause
with which the right hon. gentleman's speech was received
were monstrous, since it did not contain one particle of argu-
ment. The hon. member maintained that in the present case
a fair jury had not been given, and he defied the opposite party
to prove the contrary. The hon. member concluded by moving
(as was understood), by way of amendment, that the matter be
referred to a committee of inquiry.

On the question being put,
Mr. STANLEY rose to offer his most strenuous objections
to the amendment. He opposed it for this reason—the hon.
member who proposed the original resolution did so, and came
down to the house for thepurpose of obtaining a vote of censure
to be passed on the Government ; but finding his case falling
through his hands, the present amendment was substituted.—
(No, no, from the Irish members.) Why, then (retorted the
right hon. secretary with much vivacity), don't you adhere to
it—don't you follow up your original motion? Yqu are now,
then, it seems, steering a middle course—you abandon your
first resolution, and you call for a committee of inquiry. If
you move for a vote of censure on the present government, I, as
a member of that government, am prepared and willing to meet
your motion, but I strongly object to your amendment.—
(Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. MORE O'FERIULL rose at
the same time; though there were loud cries for the latter hon.
member, he gave way, and
Mr. O'CONNELL said, there had been a great deal of flip-
pancy of assertion during the debate, and a greater flippancy
on the part of the right hon. secretary,.in ihe few words he said
for the purpose of avoiding inquiry. No reliance was to be
placed on what was gleaned from Kemmis's affidavit. Why,
that very man was an accused party in the transaction, and it
was not true to assert that, if Mr. Barrett's attorney had ob
jetted to any of the 48 jurors, he would not have been allowed
to be upon the jury. He should like to know whether those
who defended the composition of this jury had pointed ourany
persons on it by whose characters they would stand or fall. For
his own part he had pointed out two Scotchmen ; but the right
hon. secretary opposite, the admirable debater as he was called
that evening, taunted him with pointing out those two persons
merely because they were Scotsmen. Now, it was not for that
reason, it was because one of these Scotsmen was a great bigot
and a tory, and had belonged to the Kildare-street society, and
to societies of a like description all his life; the other Scots-
man was a tory, though he was not so great a bigot as the first.
It was for these reasons that he pointed out, as objectionable to
be on a jury, these two Scotsmen. The right. hon. gentleman
had alluded to another question, and taunted him (Mr. O'Con-
nell) with his conduct towards Mr. Barrett. Now, the truth
was, that he was the first, after he heard of a prosecution about
to be commenced, to write to Mr. Barrett, telling him to sub-
stitute him (Mr. O'Connell) at once in his place, and stating to
Mr. Barrett that his friendship for him would not at all be
diminished by such substitution. Mr. Barrett's answer
was, that he would deliberate. He ( Mr. O'Connell) wrote a
second time, and told Mr. Barrett that the only question
to consider was, which of the two was to be prosecuted.
Mr. Barrett, in answer to this letter, wrote that his mind was
made up ; that the newspaper in question was his property, and
thatthat property had been increased by his (Mr. O'Connell's)
writing in it. Mr. Barrett, in this letter, moreover added, "It
they catch you they will be sure to convict you, and send you to
gaol for three years, and Ireland can't allbrd that.—(Laughter.)
Therefore I'll substitute myself for you, and go to gaol." Yet,
after all that, he (Mr. O'Connell) was taunted by the tight
hon. gentleman with /king guilty of libel—though he (Mr.
O'C.) could state that there was no libel in the letter which a
man feeling for his country, and seeing the oppression it suf-
fered, would pronounce as such. He (Mr. O'C.) did not mean
to say, however, that it was not a libel according to the present
state of the law.—(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
was always pleased to make him (Mr. O'C.) his victim in that
house; the right hon. gentleman spared every one elsebut him
alone. But he would tell the right hon. gentleman that no one
spoke words more like calumny than those used by him towai
him (Mr. O'Connell) within the walls of the house. He did
not exactly know what reason the right hon. gentleman had for
his hostility, but hebelieved he could guess it.—(Hear, hear.)
With regard to the statements made by the right hon. gentle-
man as having been made by him, he denied their truth. :this
he would say, that to the present moment the right honourable
gentleman had pursued him (Mr. O'Connell) or. every occasion,
in and out of the house, with the most unrelenting, bitter, and
persevering hostility—(Hear, hear)—an hostility, he was sorry
to say, which was too much shared by the right hon. gentle.
man's colleagues—by whose (Mr. Stanley's) opinions they were
but too much led.—(Hear, hear, hear.) With regard to the
packing of the jury, and the assertion made that Mr. Barrett
might have objected to more if he had thought proper, he could
say that he had never addressed twelve men more—less deter.
mined to do justice than the twelve men who formed that jury.
With respect to Mr. Long—his conduct, the right hon. gentle.
man admitted, he was obliged to watch.
Mr. STANLEY had only said that he was often obliged to
watch him in his political career.
Mr. O'CONNELL had thought that more was said. But
the impression was so strong in Dublin against the fairness of
the jury, that if any person were to say that it was a fair jury,
he would be laughed at—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell)
admitted that there were five or six fair, honest, and upright
men upon the panne'. He knew they would content them.
selves with appealing to the passions of the house.—(Hear,
hear.) He hoped, however, tliey would consider of it. It was
a qui stion of importance. It was a question as to the packing
of a jury, and he warned the Government that, by reflising an
inquiry into it, they led the public into the foregone conclusion,
that they already knew what would be the result, and dreaded
it.—(Hear, hear.) As to the letter itself, he would not say
that some passages in it, taken separately, might not be con.
*anted into a libel, but he was convinced that, taking it io-
gether, and as a whole, no honest man would pronounce it to
be one.—(Hear.)

Mr. MORE O'FERRA4 L was in ccknsciensle convinced,
that if the election of the jury had been by ballot, and that the
six gentlemen whose rejection was complained of had been
members of the jury, that circumstance would in no measure
alter the verdict of the jury.—(Hear, hear.) He could not,
however, but admit, that jurors in Ireland were not generally
fairly chosen.—(Hear, hear.) In Queen's County, for instance,
Catholics were universally rejected.—(Hear, hear.) He re.
gretted the temper in which the motion had been received,
and thought that the question shoidd be decided' Its own
merits, and without regard to party feeling.=(Hear, hear.)
Mr. 'A GLIONBY Said,that in the variety of assertions which
had been Made on both sides, it was impossible to divine what
the real state of the case was. He therefore thought it advis-
able that a committee should be appointed.—(Hear, hear.)
,ar, rested their defence on the
The governmcnt, app
affidavit of a person, Mr. Kemmis, who was an officer of the
crown, and might, if he had done wrong in'the exercise of his
functions, be put upon his trial. The list of names from
which the pannel of forty.eight were selected was very large,

containing 207, and the crown had an unlimited discretionary
power of objecting to names.—(No, no.) Very well, then, if
this was contradicted, here was a fact that ought to be inquired
into.—(Hear.) He thought it rather extraordinary, that out
of so large a number only seven should be Catholics. He was
himself unconnected with Ireland, and also with the other (the
ministerial) side of the house, and, for his own part, he wished
for an inquiry. If it were denied, the blame would rest on the
shoulders of those who refused their assent.—(Hear.)

Mr. LAMBERT said, that the question was, not whether
the practice of excluding Catholics from juries had ever pre-
vailed in Ireland, but whether it had been done in the present
case ?(Hear, hear.) In the absence of facts to guide him, he
had to judge from the motives that might have influenced
the government, and he was at a loss to conceive how,
if the verdict was to be favourable to the government,
it was that the officer of the Crown should have selected
Orangemen.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) If he had
this object in view, he must have made a great blunder. Now,
it was well known, that so far from there being a previous
determination to bring in Mr. Barrett guilty, great hesi-
tation existed among the jury in consequence of the eloquent
speech—he was quite ready to do the hon. and learned member
the justice to acknowledge that it was an eloquent speech
—made on that occasion by the hon. and learned gentleman
as to the nature of the verdict; but the libel was so
strong, so plain, so evident, that they could not avoid giving
the verdict they delivered.—(Hear.) He was himself a most
►mpartial judge of the business, for he knew nothing of the
details but from what had been brought before the house that
night.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Government, in his opinion,
were fully justified in instituting a prosecution against the
publisher of the libel, and he assured the house that the
people of Ireland were not so demoralized as to besatisfied with
nothing but seditious publications, that were made the conve-
nient vehicles of party malice and private slander ; and lie felt
that unless some check was given to the impulses caused by the
circulation of these prints, the country would be ruffianized.
He had no hostility to the periodical press, and he had given in
his own person an opportunity for hon. members to judge of
his sincerity. For the last twelve months, there was no insult
too great, no calumny too gross, to be heaped upon him, and
this not on private grounds, but because he presumed to differ
with a certain par, yin Ireland. But there was a limit to pa-
tience and forbearance, and he trusted that hon. members
would remember that the spring, when too heavily pressed,
must bend.

Mr. LYNCH rose amidst cries of " Question." The hon.
member, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to
say that the way in which the forty-eight jurors were reduced
to twelve was for each party to strike off one. The solicitor
for the crown had struck off the list four Catholics and two un-
exceptionable Protestants.
Mr. LITTLETON admitted there was an error in the mode
of selecting that jUI y, but it was an error on the side of libe-
rality, not of injustice. It appeared from an affidavit made in a
court of justice by Mr. Kemmis, the solicitor for the crown,
that after he and the attorney for the traverser had reduced the
list of 48 names to 24, the attorney for the traverser objected
to Mr. Stewart Blacker, and the deponent (Mr. Kemmis) con-
sented to remove his name, and place that of Mr. Robert Arm.
strong in its stead.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BARRON acquitted the government of all intention
of acting unjustly in the trial, but stated, that inasmuch as
the belief that injustice had been done prevailed in Ireland,
it would be in his opinion advisable to grant the committee of
inquiry..
Mr. WYNN said he could not give his support either to the
first motion or to the amendment. If the house passed the
resolution, it would be, in fact, prejudging the case, and
(hat without inquiry; if they adopted the amendment, they
would be committing the absurdity of inquiring why one man
and another man holding particular political opinions were on
a list of jurors, when in fact those persons were not allowed any
choice in the matter.

Lord ALTHORP said he should vote against the amend.
ment in the first instance, and then endeavonr to have the re-
solution negatived When a motion which was virtually a
vote of censure on the Government was proposed, he considered
that they had a right to press forthwith for a decision upon it,
ay or no. The only question before the house was touching
the truth of the allegations put forth. If they believed the
affidavit of Mr. Kemmis, they must see that there was no ground
for even a suspicion of misconduct.
After some observations from Mr. LALOR, which did not
reach the gallery,
Mr. O'DWYER rose to reply. He declared that two of the
jurors, Messrs. Long and Hynes, were notoriously political par-
tisans, and had themselves been guilty of uttering libels against
the House of Commons at a public meeting; and `with reference
to the conduct of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he
read an extract from a letter which he said he had received
from Mr. Barrett, in which that gentleman stated that the
author of the letter had offered to come forward and be tried
in his own person; but that a feeling upon his (Mr. Barrett's)
part that Mr. O'Connell had nothing but vindictive punish.
ment to expect, and a desire that his services in Parliament
might be preserved to his unhappy_ country, induced him
to decline this offer.
The house divided—
For the amendment 28
Against it 132
Majority lO4
The resolution was then (it was understood) negatived with-
out a division.

Ron,
at al
mltt
tent
and
the
libel
this
I WI
th,o
tqlh
thin
r)1,
PhD,
had
akici
trer
iqd
aga
nee
to,
eou
the
tint
lega
and
eVel
test
Vth(
to ,
; that
Way
lega
,s and
the
goy(
for
11141
Pecs,
(A l
sh,
toeri
the,.
the'
Part
to tj.
•