The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-08 00:00:00

SECOND READING OF THE IRISH
COERCIVE BILL.

Mr. HITME, on the Order of ti e Day being moved for
the recond reading of the Irish Coercive Bill, rose and
addressed the House. He was anxious to take the first
opportunity of addressing the House upon this important
Bill ; and never did he rise with greater regret, or with
more pain, in that House; regret, that he had been called
upon to oppose his Majesty's Ministers, with whom
he had been so long acting—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—

and pain on finding them forget all the principles which
they had been acting upon for twenty. five years, and
bringing forward a Pleasure which no set of Mini-
sters on the opposite side of the House would ever have
ventured, or dared to bring into that House.—(Hear,
hear.) No measure had ever been brought in to attempt
such a breach in the Constitution of this country as this Bill.
No Bill by so great and so universal a sweep had ever at-
tempted to deprive a large part of the country of its con-
stitutional rights as this Bill had done.—(Hear, hear.)
It was on that ground he addressed the House, because
he feared the consequences likely to arise from per-
severing with this Bill would be as injurious to those
who had promoted it, as it would be detrimental to
the best interests of the country.—(Hear, bear.)
It appeared to him that the House had been very limited
in the view hitherto taken of this important Bill, and
whilst he stated candidly that no man could be
more willing than himself to concur in giving his
Majesty's Ministers all necessary powers to put down
disturbers, and those who defied the laws in Ire-
land, he thought, before this was done, those who
came fisrward to ask for any such addition I
powers ought to make out a case, showing that the ordi-
nary law was not sufficient, and that the extraordinary
pawers were requisite.—(Hear, hear.) On the first
night of the session, he could not restrain himself front
expressing his regret at the language used in his
Majesty's speech—language which, instead of being con-
ciliating, and holding out a prospect of remedy, was of a
coercive nature—the old hackneyed phrase which hail
been used towards that country for years and years past,
and which, in his opinion, had brought Ireland into its
present state of distress.—(Cheers. ) If his feelings and
his language had been singular, he would perhaps
have doubted the correctness of his own judgment, but
when he looked back, and found that the policy
of every body who had been advocating liberty and re-
dress of the grievances of Ireland was :iirectly opposed to
this course of proceeding, he could not suppose his
judgment was erroneous. If Ministers could have made
out that no grievances existed in Ireland—if they could
have contended that the people of that country were
riotous and lawless without a ground, then it would lie
easy to say that he, and every man in the House, consi-
dering that this country never could he prosperous while
so large a portion—no less that eight millions—of his
Majesty's subjects were in a disturbed and distracted
state—that he ought to concur in any measure cal-
culated to repress those disturbances.— ( Hear, hear.)
But was there to be no comfort afforded to the Irish ?
What had been the language of his Majesty's Ministers ?
What had they avowed one after another, not this session
but last session, with regard to the condition of the people
of Ireland ? Hail the Right Hon, Secretary, in bringing in
a measure, afforded additional powers in the collection of
tithes, not stated that sorious grievances existed, by which
the inhabitants of Ireland were subject, amongst other
things, to prosecutions of the most aggravated nature, for
even the trifling aunts of 3d. and 4d.—(Hear, bear.)
When those things were admitted last Session, it was
stated that means would be taken to correct the grievances
which prevoiled throughout the country, but no such
measures bad yet been brought forward, and carried into
operalion. When a measure was brought forward in the
collection of tithes, dispensing with the ordinary forms of
law, no donbt those who were then in the House, and even
few Members would recollect what the statements were tha
were made by the Right Hon. Secretary and the Noble
Lord. He (Mr. H.) could never forget the plain and
candid state of the Noble Lord when it was proposeel to
establish an unusual measure for the recovery of tithes.
He said he admitted it was deviating from the

law—he said it was an extraordinaty -mersure, and
one which nothing would sanction but the extreme
exigency of the times, and the fact that there would be an
ample redress m ide up by affording great and substantial
relief to the people of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Was it
the way to afford that great and substantial relief for his
Majesty's Ministers to make hie M.ij-sty himself
the Tithe Proctor General of Ireland. Those who ob-
jected to take from the tithe payer the protection which
courts of law afforded, were induced to forgo their oppo-
sition to the measure, by the full declaration so can-
didly made by the Noble Lord, that he would bring
forward those measures of relief which were stated
would he calculated to give satisfaction to the
distrci:aed poeople of that country,—( Hear, hear.)

. . .
It was well known that in July last Inland was in a
greater state of tranquility than for a considerable period
previously. He (Mr. Hume) bad, within a few hours'
conversed with an Hon. Baronet, a Member of that House,
who assured him that the peaceful state of Ireland at the
period mentioned was well known to Ministers ; for that
Hon. Baronet had written to them after his arrival
in Ireland, last August, and stated to them that the
country was never known to be more tranquil.—(Hear,
hear.) What wag the answer given to those Honourable
lernb.ns, who in the last Session had opposad the passing
of a measure which turned his Majesty's Ministers into
tithe-procters ; hut that there was a necessity that it should
he passed whilst the country was in a state of profound
peace.--(Hear,.) Major George Brown, of the Kilkenny
police, had declared in evidence that, up to that period,
the introduction of the Ministerial tithe measure, Kilkenny
had been in so quiet a state that a single policeman was
competent to the performance of any ordinary duty in any
part of the county'. He had declared al•o, that a single
policeman could execute a warrant without fear of the
slightest molestation.—(llear, hear.) And that, in most
eases he (Major Brown) preferred sending one policeman
to employing four or five to do any common duty. He
entreated the. House to look to these facts; and be
thought the House ought to be put in possession of the
causes- which led to ;he change in Ireland from tran-
quillity to outrage..--.(Hear, hear.) An Hon. Member
had read the addresses of Judges and Magistrates for

fi err or six succeeding Assizes, and each of these
bore witne-s to the state of tranquillity existing in Kil-
kenny up to the time mentioned. And even the subses
quent outrages in Kilkenny alone, did not warrant the
passing of the preposed arocioue Bill.—([-Tear, hear,
hear.) For three years Major Brown said that the
country had been tranquil, anti it wae only now al-
leged to be disturbed by the outrages of the Whitefeet.
They were told that the Whitefeet had acquired such a
power that there was no security for life or property.
For the sake of the argument, he would admit
that disturbances and outrage existed to a consider-
able extent. But who was it had produced these
outrages? Who was it had effected the change they all
deplored ? He said that the Right lion. Gentleman, the
Secretary for Ireland, was the cause of all these outrages;
and what was more, he was told that last year, before the
Bid passed, that such would be its effect if persevered in.
fie begged to remind Hon. Gentlemen that when the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was accused of
being an agitator, he—(Mr. Hume)—had said, that
it was the Right Hon. Gentleman who was the
agitator, for that it was he who inflicted injustice on
the people of Ireland, anti was the cause of the outrages
of which they complained. He did not mean to say tha
it was not truly stated that Ireland had been disturbet
for ages. It was true, but Ireland bad been op.
pressed for :ages, and he had hoped after the great
change which took place last year that oppression would
have ceased, and the long deferred hopes of the Irish peo.
pie fulfilled. Indeed the people both of England and Ire-
land were told by the Right Hon. Secretary opposite last
year, that he came to give them a boon, and proclaimed
the intention of His Majesty's Ministers to extinguish
tithes for ever. Such was the language used in this
House; but " Hope deferred in iketh the heart sick," and
the people of Ireland having long wonted this relief—hay.
ing long wanted the fulfillment of the promises made to
them, naturally became impatient, and broke out into out-
rages. lie did not mean to say that all the outrages
which had recently taken place in Ireland had tithes fir
their immediate cause, but undoubtedly it was to tithes all
the present evils of that country might eventually be traced.
-was it surprising that the Right Hon. Gentleman should
have succeeded, acting wrier the law passed last session,
in overturning the, tranquillity which had beem enjoyed
for nearly three years. He had himself given a reluctant
consent to the Bill of last session, but it was on a pledge
of relief which had been now forfeited. He asked the
House to go with him to the source of the present die.
ceders, for he thought he should he able to demonstrate
they nripinated in the Right Hon. Gent. Ifso, they ought to
pat. a Bill to prenat that Right Hon. Gentleman having
tossei dulling in the affairs of Ireland, in-
teed of passing a lull to put down the outrages which
originated in his conduct. They ought to advise his
Majesty to remove a counsellor whose evil advice had cast
the peacea'rle county of Kilkenny from a comparatively
comfortable state into one of the greatest distraction.
Whch was better, that they should see the Right Hon.
Gentleman removed from his seat, or have a military
despotism established in Ireland. That Right Hon.
Gentleman had led the people of Ireland to believe that
this odious impost would be removed ; but instead of
that, thousands, aye, even tens of thousands of arrests and
actions, supported by squadrons of cavalry, battalions of
infantry, and parks of artillery, swept away the
property of whole parishes for the arrears of tithes.
He would only say that this Bill was more than human
nature could bear. It was virtue to resiet.--( Hear, hear.)
No doubt it was the duty of every free man to obey the
laws: so long as they were properly administered and
imposed with a due regard to the Constitution of the
Country ; but when the steel was forced into the
seal, then it was the right and duty of every man
who bore the name of freeman to resist the oppres-
sion. Was it not perfectly notorious that for the
arrears of a few shillings of tithes, the cow, the pig,
which were worth fifty times the amount of tithes due by
the prior man, were driven away and sold for a merely
animal price; and then, out of feelings of wantonness,
they were destroyed.—(Cries of 'r No, no.") A statement
had been made in that House of a stack of hay having
been seized, sold for a few shillings, and, to satisfy the
malignant feelings of those who had seized it, the stack
was set on fire and destroyed—that statement had been
made in that House, remained uneontradicted, therefore
he had a right to take it as a fact. Was It not well
known to the House that pigs, cows, geese, had been
sent to barracks for protection, having been violently
seized for that odious impost—tithes ; and all this to sup-
port the darling system of the Right lion. Gentleman—
to support a sinecure church, and its odious accompani-
ment, the attrocious system of tithes. Sorry was be to see tire
Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he knew to be one
of the most honest and candid of men,—grieved was he
to see him dragged at the chariot wheels of the Right Hon.
Secretary for Ireland, as a sacrifice to his ambition. That
he who had been the friend of the people—who had been
the protector of his Majesty's subjects, should be now
dragged along and obliged to give his reluctant consent to
a measure of this sort, was most melancholy. He relieved
that, the outrages in Kilkenny began because of the seizure
of the effects belonging to a Catholic clergyman for tithes,

LEFT SPEAKING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMJI OAVS, MARCH 7.

Several Members complained that they had petitions to
present against the Irish Coercive Bill; hut, according to
the present arrangements, they feared they should he un-
able to present them until perhaps after the Bill had
passed.—(Hear, hear, hear.) One Hon. Member
slid that he stood 171 on the list ; another, that
he was worse off, for he stood 474.—(Laughter.) Col.
Williams said he had several petitions, and another coin.
phoned that he was at No. 185.
Lord ALTHORP admitted that it was a great griev-
ance to be unable to present the petitions, and he suggested
that as to-morrow was fixed fur the second reading of the
Bill, no other petitions should be presented up to the time
when the second reading was called on, except those which
related to the Bill.—( Hear, hear.)

Mr. LITTLETON said he had a number of petitions
upon various subjects ; hut if the suggestion of the Noble
Lord were acceded to, he would willingly wave his right
to present them.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that by
that mode the House would get through a large propor-
tion of the petitions.

Mr. COBBETT suggested tliat all the petitions should
be printed.
Mr. ATTWOOD had eleven petitions against the Bill,
and he suggested to the Noble Lord whether it would
not be better to extend the period for the second reading,
and confine the whole business of the House to the pre-
sentation of petitions for a few days.—(oh, oh ! and
laughter.)

_
An HoN. MEMBER proposed that all names on the list,
of Members having petitions to present against the Bill,
should be ellled over in rotation.—(Hoar.)

Lord ALTHORP thought there was no difficulty in
the case; the names could be called on without striking
any off the list, so that it be understood that no petitions
be presented except those rel iting to the Bil
On ti,e motion that the petition before the House be
laid on the tble,

Tile SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the Hon.
Member who had presented the petition would have done
better had he refrained from the observations which he
had used. He (the Solicitor-General) contended that the
House could not grant a commission to examine witnesses
at Norwich. re bad been a aeries of attempts made to
prejudice the public mind respecting that election.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that nothing could be a greater
grievance than the enormous expense of Committees of
that House. He hoped, if any new law was to be intro-
duced on the subject for England, it would not be the
same absurd and clumsy law which affected Ireland.
There had been one instance in which a Commission
sent to Ireland had lasted during the whole of the
session. There was a part of this petition which was
of very great consequence, namely, that part which
complained of the extreme grievance—the enormous ex-
pense of the Committees. He believed that expense
very often to be the propelling motive to petition the
House ; and he trusted Committees and the House in
future would be more firm than they had hitherto been
in declaring petitions to be frivolous and vexatious.--
(Hear, hear, hear.) Nothing could be more grievous
than that a Memher who had been regularly re-
turnel to the House as duly elected, should he subject
to going through the expense of a Committee, and after
wards, when his return was declared by the Committee to
be proper, he should not be able to get one shilling of his
costs.

Sir W. W. WYNN disclaimed having had any-
thing to do with the formdtion of the Bill under
which commissions were sent to Ireland. He agreed
with the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who
had just sat down, that it was a most clumsy and ex-
pensive Bill. He had ah,tained from proposing any al-
teration respecting it, in the expectation that some Gen-
tleman from Ireland would bring forward the sub-
ject. He agreed also with the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, in considering the hardship immense, of Mem-
bers having to go through the proceedings of the Committee
of that House as regarded the expense. He thought it
would be well to have the law to be that in all Cases in
which the petition might he cleclired to be frivolous and
vexatious, the party petitioning should pay the costs, unless

the Committee reported specially in favour of their having
been sufficient grounds for petitioning.—(Cheers.)
Mr. B. LENNARD thought it a serious defect in the
law, that the whole expense of prosecuting a case of bri •
bery should be thrown upon the party who seeks to punish
the offender•. For his own part, he was disposed to give
Committees of this House the power of giving the pro.
secutor, if he might so call the person who brought in a
ease of bribery before them, his costs. This practice was
followed i❑ courts of law, and he thought that justice, as
well as policy, required that it should be done also by that
House.

Mr. WARBURTON then said he would, without
reference to the particular case brought before the House
by the petitioners, state a circumstance, applicable to
the general principle, which took place last session.
The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire had his return peti-
tioned against. That Hon. Member rose in his place,
and stated that he believed himself in fairness and justice
to be entitled to his seat ; that he had been legally elected,
but that he should be obliged to resign his seat on account
of the expense its defence would entail upAn him. He
(Mr. W.) bad rather taken the side of the petitioners as far
as a Member of Parliament could take any side ; but he
thought it fair to say that had not some of the electors of
the country taken the matter up, the Hon. Mem-
ber would have been obliged to resign his seat, al-
though the Committee afterwards decided that be
was duly elected. This injustice, as he was now
bound to call it, would have been inflicted merely
because the evidence, instead of being taken by commission
on the spot, was taken orally from the witnesses, who
were brought up to the metropolis at a great expense.
Mr. \VASON said a few words, which were inaudible
in the gallery.
Mr. WYNN apprehended that when the Committee
decided that the sitting Member had no ground of defence,
and pronounced his defence to be frivolous and vexatious,
he should then bear all the expenses of the proceedings.
Mr. GROTE made some observations on the petition,
which was then ordered to be laid on the table.

Mr. O'CONNELL had a petition to present from Mr.
D. Ronayne, who had been returned a Member for
Clonmell. The petition against his election was of un-
usual length. Part of it went into the right of
voting of a number of voters who were duly registered
by the proper officer. Mr. Ronayne had objections pend-
ing against many of the voters on the other side, and
altogether, the case presented considerable complexity and
difficulty, and the Committee was fixed for the 21st day
of March. Now it happened that the assizes for
Clonmel were to be held on the 15th of March,
and they would continue at least ten days. Under these
circumstances those witnesses who were, perhaps, the
most respectable, and whose evidence would be of the
greatest weight, would be engaged at those assizes. And
if they were to leave Clonmel immediately on the
conclusion of the assizes, they would arrive here
at the time of the recess, and the expenses of their
return or stay in town would be exceedingly great. The
prayer of the petition was, that the ballot might be de-
ferred until after the assizes, and he would move that the
petition should be printed, and taken into consideration
to•morrow. He (Mr. O'Connell) would take care that
the agent of the petitioner should have a copy of the peti-
tion ordered to he printed, and the motion for its being
taken into consideration tomorrow carried.
SPECIAL JURIES IN IRELAND.

Lord ALTHORP said h. had already stated in that
House, that he considered the pledge be had given
last year, that the Jury Bill should be sup-
ported by Government, was a pledge which
remained unredeemed, and which should be performed.
He had now to state to the Hilt. and Learned Member
for Dublin, that it was the intention of Government
to bring forward, en as early a day as possible, in
the other House of Parliament, a Jury Bill in sub-
stance the rime with that which had been introduced
in that House (the Commons) in last session. The reason
which had induced the Government to bring forward the
measure in the other House, was the great press of busi•
ness, which would prevent, necessarily, its speedy progress.
It would then be brought down (tom thence to that
House, when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman might, if
it were not satisfactory, make any amendment he thought
fit. He (Lord Althorp) merely threw this out to him
freely and frankly, in order that be might, if he
thought proper, withdraw his motion for the pre-
sent. If, however, the Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man was inclined, notwithstanding this announcement, to
persevere, he (Lord Althorp) would not object to his
motion, reserving to himself, however, his right to propose
at a future stage such alterations as he should think were
called for.

Mr. O'CONNELL said the Noble Lord (Althorp)
might rest assured that he placed unlimited reliance on his
intention to redeem the pledge he bad given. The only objec-
tion he bad to the course recommended was, that he consi-
dered the measure introducsd last session radically defective.
It seemed to him (Mr. O'Connell) that the Bill should
proceed much further—it provided for the cure of only
one evil, and left another enormous one untouched. He was
anxious to make a simple statement of the extent to which
he wished the measure to go, and if, after that
statement, Government would promise to take the whole
matter into its consideration, he would immediately with-
draw his motion, and leave it entirely in their hands.
The motion which he should make was for leave to bring in
a Bill, according to the terms of the notice, to amend the law
relating to special juries and juries in criminal cases in
Ireland. He need not detain the House on either branch
of the subject. As to special juries, his statement should
be extremely short. By the Act 6 George IV.,
the jury law was altered and substantially amended.
Up to that period the power of selecting Special Jurors
was vested in the Master of the Crown-office, in the
Court of King's Bench. By that means he had the alas
solute control over Special Juries, and it was com-
plained that he, by that means, packed them.—
(Hear, hear.) The question was at length brought
before the Court of King's Bench, in Ireland,
when their Lordships stated, that if packing juries meant
electing the jury, the officer had certainly that power.
The subject was afterwards brought before that House,
who took the power of selection froth the officer, and
enacted that a special jury list being once made out, every
juror in future should be drawn by ballot. All that he
required was, that the law, as it related to special juries,
in Ireland should be assimilated to that in England. As
so substantial an improvement had taken place in the law
on that subject in England for the last six years, lie
thought the people of Ireland bad now reason to com-
plain that it had not been ere this adopted in Ire-
land.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Iu making that
statement, he did not bring any charge against
the present or the late Administration, for he knew per-
fectly well that obstacles were raised against those im-
provements in other quarters in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
One of the Judges, Mr. Baron Pennefather,
w , supposed to have opposed the adoption of such
a measure, but upon his (Mr. O'Connell's) inquir-
ing of that celebrated and Learned Judge, he
f oind' that it was altogether a mistake, that he only
objected to some minor details, and, on the whole, was
highly in favour of such a Bill. He (Mr. O'C.) thought
that even if all the Judges were opposed to the measure,
the House was, it seemed to hitn right, not to attend to
that opposition. What, lie would ask, was the office of
juries ? Why to check the judges, and to take care that
they did not render themselves absolute. It was some-
what singular that the Legislature in Ireland had attempted
to cure the evil, in the making out of special juries, but
had not been able to effect it. It was sufficient, however,
for him to know that the grossest abuse existed in the
selection of special juries in that country; and if any
Hon. Member doubted that fact, lie (Mr. O'C.) would
only refer them to the 15th Report of the Commissioners
upon it. In one instance, the Under-Sheriff of the county
of Mayo had stated that he believed on one trial, in select-
ing the jurors he hail consulted the interests of one of the
parties at the trial ; but the great complaint was with
respect to special juries in Dublin. The corporation there
had the nomination of the Sheriffs, who took care to put
upon the jury list corporators of politics assimilating with
their own ; and in such way special juries were appointed
in that city, and it was to be remembered that property of
the greatest value depended upon the verdict of such men.
It was right that the House should know the present
method of selecting criminal juries in Ireland. Practi-
cally, they were chosen by the Sub-Sheriff at each Assizes,
according to his own discretion and caprice, and that in
spite of the statute 12 Geo. 1., cap. 4. By the 16th
sec. of that Act, it was enacted, that at every Michaelmas
term the Sheriff should take an inquest of what freeholders
there were in each barony, and make a return of them as
a grand pannel, out of which all the juries might be taken
at the assizes. At present, the practice was for the Sub-
Sheriff, according to the extent of the county, to return
four, five, six, or even seven hundred names, which, in
the result, gave the Crown the absolute choice of the
juries. If it were a capital case, the prisoner bad a right
to twenty peremptory challenges. In cases of felony, the
Judges had taken away from the prisoner all right of
peremptory challenge, unless the punishment was capital.
Now, he swished to introduce a clause into this Bill, which
should assimilate the law in Ireland upon this subject to
the existing state of the law in England. The Sub-Sheriff
having selscted the pannel, and the prisoner being put
upon his trial, he might challenge twenty jurors; but the
Crown had the unlimited right of challenging seithout
assigning any reason whatever. So long ago as the roga

of Edward 1., it was enacted that the Crown should not
have the right of peremptory challenge ; but the Judges,
in fact, repealed this Act. The manner in which they
did it was this. They gave the Crown the unlimited
right of setting jurors aside, that was, of standing by till
the pannel was exhausted. Now, the pannel was never
exhausted, for the Judges had the power of making the
Sub-Sheriff enlarge the pannel. The Crown has, there-
fore, the power of setting aside ad infinitum. When the
prisoner has exhausted his twenty challenges, the Crown
might go on setting jurors aside till a jury of its own choice
was obtained, and instances had been known in Ireland of
the Crown in one trial Setting aside 130 jurors. Private
prosecutions had the same advantage. The frightful ex-
tent to which this claim was put would be sufficiently il-
lustrated by one anecdote. A solicitor of the (',curt of
Chancery was indicted for a conspiracy to evade the Bank-
rupt Laws, and the prosecutor set aside all jurors who
were not members of a society to which he belonged,
called the " Friendly Fellows," and ultimately had 11
of his brothers of the society on the jury.—(Hear.)
Was it not a strong case that when a man was convicted

of a conspiracy he should by the Act of the Lord Chan-
cellor inquiring into the circumstances, have had a free
pardon granted to him, and been restored to his profes
sion ? This could not have been a case to go to a jury,
otherwise the Lord Chancellor would not have interfered.
The conduct of the attorney could only have been an ag-
gravation of the offence, and he ought to have been pro-
secuted for it. He thought the House would agree with him
that this state of the law ought to be altered. He pro-
posed to alter it upon a principle that already existed.
Since the reign of Edward the Third, the ballot had ex-
isted in Ireland on the civil side, and he meant now to pro-
pose that the ballot should he introduced on the criminal
side also. He meant to propose that the ballot-box should
be on the table, and that the gentlemen whose names were
called over, should on their answering be chosen, just as
special jurors in this country were, the prisoner having
the right of challenge. Ile would, if possible, do away
with the Crown's right to challenge. He would revive
the power granted by Edward the First, and take away
from the Crown the right it now possessed of set;ing jurors
aside. There could not be anything more complete than the
oath that was taken by jurors, well and nu!), to try the
matter in issue, and if it happened that any one of them
had got a bias either way, to preserve to the parties the
power of getting rid of that person. He proposed to assi
inflate the system of the ballot in all cases in Ireland to
that adopted in England. He would now move for leave
to bring in the Bill ; he should be happy if the Noble
Lord (Althorp) would say that his Mitjest's Government
would take those points into their consideration, particu.
larly the latter ones„ before the Bill was introduced i❑to
the House of Lords, and then he would withdraw his mo-
tion, or if, after be got leave to bring in the Bill, the No-
ble Lord would consent to his proposition, he would,
even then, withdraw it. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the laws relative to Special Juries and Juries in
Criminal Cases in Ireland.

Lord ALTHORP thought the statement of the Hon.
Member went further than assimilating the law in the two
countries. He would not, however, oppose the motion,
hut he begged it to be understood that he reserved to him•

self the right of opposing any part after he had consulted
with his c(.llea2ues.

Mr. LEFROY could not allow this Bill to pass through
a stage without expressing his alarm at the mischievous
consequences of such a revolution in our institutions as
must necessarily be effected by such a measure. The Bill
not only proposed revolutionary changes in Ireland, but
went farther than any thing that was proposed or con•
templated in England. The right of challenge was an

ancient and useful-prerogative of- the Clown, which had
b, en retained for wholesome and wise reasons. It was in-
vested in the Crown for the benefit of the people, and
there could not be any reason to suppose that such a pre-
rogative would be used for any other purposes. He was
really sorry to observe the frequent attempts made in that
House to bring those who administered the law in Ireland
into contempt.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that every attempt
to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland should have
his hearty good wishes, and he was bound to observe that
Juries °elected by an officer of a Court would never com-
mand the respect of the public —(Rear, hear.) Having
said thus much, he took leave to suggest to the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman that he had better confine him-
self to a byre assimilation of the Jury laws in Ireland and
England, and not to attempt anything likely to meet with
serious opposition.
Mr. SHAW could not agree with the Learned Solici-

tor-General that it would be desirable in all cases to assi-
milate the laws of the two countries. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin had said that Judge Penne-
father was favourable to the principle of the Irish Jury
Bill. Now he (Mr. Shaw) took upon himself to say th,t
that Learned Person, as well as all the Judges in Ireland,

were opposed to the principles of the Bill. -
Mr. C. FERGUSSON said it was pet fectly clear that
the Crown ought to lie limited in its challenge, but it might
he right to consider that the Crown ought to have a chal-
lenge as large at the other party.

Colonel —CONOLLY felt it right to call upon the
House to regard this measure with the greatest caution,
for the twelve Judges in 'rebind had distinctly stated that
it Was incompatible with the administratio❑ of justice.

Mr. O'DWYER said it was on record in the documents
of that Hou-e that a jury might be purchased with as much
facility and with as much certainty as a pound of tea or a
yard of calico.

Mr. O'CONNELL replied.
Colonel VERNER made a few observations, which
were so imperfectly heard in the gallery, as to render it
impossible to report them. He was understood to defend
the Protestant juries.
After a few words in explanation from Mr.O'CONNELL,
the motion was put and agreed to, and the Bill ordered to
be brought in.