The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-20 00:00:00

;~

the Hou,a to agree with him, but in his owo he was deplived
of that advantage.
Mr. SH A W—So long as the petitioners thought that peti-
tion would have been acted on, they did not think it right to
extend the time, or to inquire so particularly into the see.nritv •
but now that another petition had been substituted for that,
they thought it necessary to be satisfied as to the responsibility
of the petitioners. -
Mr. O'CONNELL could not understand why the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman opposite so anxiously insisted upon
this report. It was alleged that no advantage would be gained
thereby; but it would not be insisted upon for nothing. He
submitted to the House, that the petitioners, having lapsed the
time, they could not now come before it and ask leave to bring
up the report.
The SPEAKER made a few observations, which were
quite inaudible.
Mr. O'CONNELL could see no reason why the House
should now enlarge the time.--( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
By keeping back the report, the opposite party had done this--
they had thrown it upon him ( Mr. O'Connell) to make the
motion for the postponement, which had they brought in the
report earlier, would have been their postponement. Was that
fair ? Was it he would ask, reasonable ? And if it was not
so in any other person's case, why' should it be so in his?
Sir J. CAMPBELL coincided in the view of the question
taken by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. He
thought the application of the opposite party was most unrea-
sonable.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. F. SHAW would not urge the matter upon the House
if it was its pleasure that he should withdraw it. He had now
another matter connected with this subject to bring before the
House—
Mr. O'CONNELL—Then you withdraw the report ?
Mr. SHAW assented. He had now to call the attention
of the House to a matter which personally affected the character
of an individual who acted as agent to the petitioners.
though he fully agreed that whatever was stated by an Hon.
Member in this House should be received with great atten-
tion, and have all the sanction of an oath, he conceived it
would only apply to such Membe'r own case, and not to the
case and statements of a third party, who, he contended, ought
not to be shut out by any declaration of any Hon. Member.
Mr. O'CONNELL objected in point of order to the intro-
duction of any name and statement, unless they could be met
by a counter name and statement.
Mr. SHAW explained that he intended to relate the state-
ments of the petition only.
Mr. O'CONNELL acknowledged himself to be under the
correction of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he certainly un-
derstood that he intended to refer to affidavits.—( Hear.)
Mr. SHAW—No ; the facts related to the petition only.
Mr. O'CONNELL then would put it to the House whe-
ther such statements should go forth to the public without
counter statements ?—not that he was afraid of investigation :
he desired nothing but investigation.
Mr. G OULB URN spoke to order. An Hon. Member, in
presenting a petition, had a perfect right to speak of its contents.
After a few words from Mr, RICE, who was inaudible in the
gallery.
Mr. SHAW proceeded to state the facts detailed in
the petition: The petitioner on the 11th instant went, in
•)mpany !with another person, on business wholly uncon
netted with the present matter to, Sir Robert Sidney, who
in point of fact was the agent of the other side. He saw Mr.
O'Connell, who desired Sir Robert Sidney, as his agent, to
ask a petitioner to hand over a notice in reference to the
Dublin petition, which was given, and he said he would be
prepared on the 19th to go on. After joking_ on the subject,
he asked, " Do you mean to treat us with all the petition ?"
to which no positive answer was returned; and Mr. O'Connell
went away, but returned soon after, and said, addressing
Sir R. Sidney---" I think it fair to tell you, that if you corn
plete the recognizances, I will let go the others ; but all
depends upon your not turning me round upon a point of
form." This he repeated several times ; to which Sir R.
Sidney replied—" To be sure, I understand you fully—you
mean to make yourself secure." Nothing more occurred.
After that cotiversation on Saturday, to guard against any
fatality or failure on a point of form, a notice was posted,
that on Wednesday last he would be ready with his witnesses.
On Monday, two days after, the petitioner proceeded to the
Exarhiner's Office to perfect his securities. Mr. O'Connell
objected to one of the securities on that occasion, and the Agent
states in • his ' petition that this objection came upon. him
by surprize, and no wonder, because there was not a
more solvent gentleman in the City of Dublin
than he was. The consequence was, that the agent was not
prepared to meet the objection, and at his desire the Exa-
miner gave further time to enable him to satisfy them as to
the reality of this particular security. The notice was then
posted for the following Wednesday, and on Wednesday Mr.
Baker appeared before the Examiner, and it was then he po-
sitively states that Mr. O'Connell, for the first time, objected
to him that fraud was practised. Mr. Baker, in reply to
that charge, states positively that he never said he would
abandon the petition alluded to, but in the jocular terms
already mentioned. The petitioners further state the fact,
that Mr. O'Connell himself, on the Monday following, ap-
plied to the Examiner for a certificate to the effect that
Mr. Baker had not posted his notice in time, and in con-
firmation of that, he refers to Mr. Rose, a clerk of this House.
That gentleman will corroborate the statement that Mr.
O'Connell, on the Monday following, applied to him for a
certificate in order to find fault with the notice which he (Mr.
O'Connell) said was not posted in time to examine the
securities. The petition further states, that on Monday, when
this form was used against him, and the postponement in con-
sequence had taken place, he informed Mr. O'Connell that he
would proceed, on the Wednesday following, to perfect the
security objected to. Under these circumstances, he said, it
was that he first heard the accusation of fraud. He positively
asserts he never stated to any one, that it was his intention to
abandon the petition referred to, unless he failed to perfect
the securities in the other petitions, his object being to avoid
the expense and inconvenience of prosecuting many peti-
tions. (Hear, hear, hear.) The petitioner complained of
the charges made against him, and prays the House to enquire
into the statement.--( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) On
the part of Mr. Baker, he (Mr. S.) challenged enquiry.
In conclusion, however, he begged to add, that the
statements of the petition were verified by affidavit, and he
referred to another Gentlemen, (to Mr. Rose) as to the truth
of what he stated. Mr. S. entreated the House, in justice to
the character of Mr. Baker, to suspend its judgment until the
decision of the Committee on this question was made known.
The affidavit of the petition was then laid on the table.
Mr. O'CONNELL—If this affidavit were in a shape in
which I could prosecute it for perjury I would do so at once
There were four persons present on the occasion alluded to.
One of them was a young gentleman, a client, of the name of
Maton, who came in, on business, to the office when
the conversation commenced.—( Hear.) The agent for
the petitioners came in and Stated his willingness to abandon
the petition in question, but he did not state any thing that
made any distinct impression on his mind on the subject. But
as he was going away, Mr. Mathison having gone, he came
back, and in the presence of four witnesses, emphati-
cally gave notice to him, and his colleague, Mr. Ruth-
yen, that he might disembarrass or disengage—the only
doubt, then, on the subject, is as to which word he
used—our minds altogether of the petition in question,
for they certainly would not proceed upon it. There
were four persons present when this was said, and those four
were ready to prove in any Court of justice the truth of what
he now stated. The third petition had been signed by five
persons, and there were only four names to the other two peti-
tions---the fifth of those persons had not been served with notice
as he did not notice that the third was only signed by three per-
sons. Mr. O'C. sent notice to Dublin only as to the four. The
object of the petitioners was to make a point before the com-
mittee in order that I may not have a commission, because
I have not served the parties with notice. I desire inquiry,
and that inquiry under the sanction of an Oath.—( Hear.)
Let the Hon. and Learned Recorder, when he leaves this
room, lay a wager if he puts this question in the stage of a de-
claration on the file, and leave it to the verdict of twelve men.
—(Laughter.) There is one circumstance which the Hon.
and Learned Recorder has mentioned, and only one which I
have reason to contradict, and that is this false statement.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) He said that oil Monday evening
I went to the Examiner and inquired whether lie had posted
on the preceding Saturday the list. When I found it repeated
that they would not proceed upon the two petitions—when I
found a notice in the hall upon the subject, having written to
Dublin that day to stop the witnesses, and having given up
going to as's), agent and holding a consultation, I came down
to the House, and when I found that notice posted up, I
said this must be some trick, and long before coming into
the House I met my freind Sergeant Perrin, who advised me
not to bring the matter before the House. Sergeant Perrin
accompanied me to the Clerk of Recognizances, and I in-
quired how it happened that, after Mr. Biker had stated so
and so, he had posted up the notice. The Clerk said it was
not Mr. Baker who had done it, but that lie himself, find-
ing the recognizance in the office, had done so. I did
not make any inquiry of Mr. Baker.--( Hear, hear. )
I went to ascertain how, after he had told me that the
notice should not be posted up, it had been posted. These
are the facts of the case ; and I repeat, that let me have my
witnesses in any Court of Justice, before any criminal tribu-
nal, I shall convince them of the truth of them. The facts
are recent, and cannot have escaped the recollection el the

witnesses.
Mr. RUTHITEN would not trespass on the House, but he
was anxious to repeat the statements that had been made by
his Hon. and Learned Colleague.
Mr. SHAW rose amidst loud cries of " Spoke, spoke."
He was willing to consent to any mode of inquiry that the
House might think proper.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished the Right Hon. Gentleman to
accept the wager he had offered him.—( Hear.)
Mr. SHAW wished to have no arrangement with the Hon.
and Learned Member—any mode the Speaker might lay down
would answer his wishes. He wished to know from the Hon.
and Learned Member, how a letter written on Monday c:,uld
stop witnesses coming on Thursday ?—( Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNEl.Lsaidthat no witnesses would be required
on Thursday or Friday. No business would be done as these
lists would be exchanged on that day. The letter written on
Monday would arrive on Wednesday, and the witnesses would
be in town on Saturday.—(Great cheering.)
Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know whether the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite had asserted that what he yesterday
stated upon the authority of the Mirror if Parliament was not
the fact ?
Sir R. PEEL really believed that the extract from the
Mirror of Parliament, which the Hon. and learned Member
had read, was as nearly correct as possible. He was really
surprised that the Honourable Member would have
thought it worth his while to ask such a question.--( Hear.)
The Hon. Member had stated in the course of his speech last
night that he had no confidence in the present Government
bringing in any measures for the relief of the poor in Ireland,