The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-24 00:00:00

to try the case by a special jury. It had been said that this
was all pretence, and that the proceedings was unfair. Now.
forty-eight names were drawn, and each party struck off
twelve. The Crown had a right to strike off twelve, and the
defendants had the same right; but he admitted, on the part
of the Crown, that this was a right to be exercised with defer-
ence to public opinion. He admitted, that if they left no Roman
Catholic upon the jury, that such a circumstance would
tend to create a false impression, and a prejudice.
He would also admit that, ca.terts paribus, he should be dis-
posed to leave Roman Catholics on the jury ; but how did the
fact stand ? Was the case cceteris paribus ?—( Cheers.) He
would go further. So much did he feel the importance of pay-
ing a deference to public opinion that he would even be dis-
posed to go beyond this.—( Hear, hear.) But how stood the
case here? The first clamour was that every Roman Catholic
had been struck off the list because he was a Roman Catholic.

That had been given up. The Right Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman had, with his usual candour, admitted last night that
there was no blame as to eight. It appeared that there was
some mistake as to the number of Roman Catholics originally

. ,
on the parcel. There:were ten Roman Catholics on the panel ;
that was one more than the Crown-Solicitor was aware of.

Now, with regard to eight of these it appeared that no ques-
tion arose ; it was admitted that they were Repeaters, and that
the law officer of the Crown would have been guilty of a dere-
liction of duty if he had not struck them off the list. There
were two left, Hendrick and Dunne. With respect to
Dunne, he held in his hand a paper dated May,
184'2, containing requisition signed by Dunne, for
calling a repeal meeting. The Hon, and Learned Gentleman
last night read resolutions agreed to at a meeting which had
been attended by one of the jury, and had given that as a reason
why that gentleman ought not to have been upon the jury.
Now, at this meeting t e‘olutions had been agreed to, pledging
all present to promote the sacred cause of repeal by all consti-
tutional means—(C beers and counter-cheers)—and to adopt
those measures which had been suggested by the Liberator.—
(Cheers.) Now, if that man had not been struck off the panel,
the law officers,: in deference to a perverse and spurious libe-
rality, would hare forgotten the duty which they owed to the
Crown.—( Cheers.) With regard to Hendrick, Mr. Kemmis
had stated in his affidavit, that at the time he struck Hendrick
off it was under the impression that he was a Protestant and a
Conservative. He struck Hendrick off because he was obliged
to strike off one, and he thought Hendrick the least eligible to
be on the jury. There was another reason, which, as the Secre-
tary of State had not alluded to it, he would not state. It was
not respecting Hendrick's personal character, and he would not
further allude to it. Now, there were eight Roman Catholics
struck off because they were members of the Repeal Association ;
one, because he had signed a requisition for a repeal meeting ;
and one, because it was necessary to strike off some person.
His Hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, bad used an ex-
pression with regard to the common law, which struck him
with the greatest surprise. He said that the liberties of the
people of England were buried in their Courts of Common
Law ; that in them their liberties had been swamped. He did
not know whether his Hon. and Learned Friend was in Lis
place, and he (lid not wish to use a syllable which would give
him pain, but he could not help saying that if he drank of the
spirit of the common law at those fountains at which their
older lawyer s had drank, and tasted of it in the spirit of their
ancestors, he would not have spoken of it as he had done. He
hoped the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was not pre-

the subject of education he could not refrain from saying that
he wished, as far as the means of this country would permit, it
was diffused over every portion of the empire. Most of the
Members of that House were no doubt acquainted with his
own humble history, and it was impossible for any one who had
benefited so much by the noble educational endowments of this
country not to feel strongly in favour of its extension.—( Hear,
hear.) He regretted there was so much agitation on the one
hand and resistance on the other—so much hopeless despon-
dency among one portion of the people of Ireland—and so
much alarm among the other. No doubt the question before the
House was one of the greatest importance, and those
who trifled with if were trifling with the interest of
the mightiest empire that ever existed.—( Hear, hear. )
A misfortune to this country would be a calamity to all the
world—the march of improvement would be arrested, the pro-
gress of knowledge impeded, and the advance of the Christian
reliuion seriously retarded.—( Cheers. ) He responded to the
feeling so eloquently expressed by Hon. Gentlemen opposite,
that reconciliation, kindness, and love might be created ; and
he would conclude by expressing a fervent hope that theiecoun-
sels adopted would be such as to secure peace and union, and
thereby the happiness and prosperity of the united empire.—
(Loud cheers. )
Mr. ROEBUCK complimented the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who had just sat down, on the mild and con-
ciliatory manner in which he had expressed himself. The Noble
Lord had introduced a motion for inquiring into the state of Ire-
land, but for the last two or three nights the subject had been
almost lost sight of, and the minor consideration had so much
usurped the place of the greater that there was danger of the
main object of the discussion being lost sight of altogether.
It had been urged by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of
the House that the motion conveyed a censure upon Ministers,
and that, as it was particularly desirable at this crisis that Go-
vernment should have the confidence of Parliament, it was not
politic or prudent to moot the subject of inquiry.—( Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him to be the duty of that House to be
ready on every occasion to inquire into the conduct of
Ministers, and not to have confidence in any Go-

have charity for others. He (Mr. Roebuck) believed that the
feeling which had been created by such declarations as those to
which ho had adverted, were precisely those which would con-
tinue in all their animosity as the bane of Ireland.
But he wanted to know under these circumstances, what was

to be done? They had employed force, and from that no
good bad come. They had used the law, followed up its
forms and powers with a vigorous pertinacity. The Learned
Attorney-General for Ireland he did not then see in the House,
and he was sorry for it; but he must say, that in spite
of every explanation that had been offered, the conduct of the
Government had not been cleared of the charges brought

against it.—( Hear, hear.) In his conduct of the late prosecu-
tion, the Learned Attorney-General for Ireland showed himself
a nisi prius advocate, instead of a responsible public
servant endowed with a high trust, and whose whole demeanour
should have been impassable and impartial.—( Cheers.) He
should have said—l have no gratification in getting a convic-
tion against these men, but the administration of the law. I
must maintain the law, but I will do so in such a way as to
gain for it additional strength in the respect it shall command
from all.—(Cheers.) From the beginning to the end he had
utterly mistaken his position and his duty; he had allowed a
sort of personal animosity to mingle with the conduct of the
case—(Cries of "Hear, hear")—and all the while that
he was complaining of efforts at delay made by the
traversers he was himself guilty of the most unbecoming haste.
—(Cheers.) lde now came to the question of the jury, and
he was going distinctly to charge the Right Hon. the Recorder
of Dublin with not having done his duty. The position of that
gentleman was two-fold; first, that of a judge, and next, that
of a ministerial officer. As a judge he had to adjudicate on
each man's right to be on the jury. That was finished on the
24th November, and his ministerial functions then com-
menced. He and his officers had to make up the
book, from which book the jury list had to be
made up by the Sheriff. The Right Hon. Gentleman
was a Privy Councillor, and was called to the meeting at the
Castle, when others were excluded. He was in reality, then,
one of the accusers, and he ought to have recollected how
liable to suspicion a man so situated was—( Hear, hear)—and
how necessary it was to keep himself and his office clear from
imputation.—(Loud cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
left Dublin for a time, and in his absence an application was
made for the adjudicated lists. Four of these adjudications
were submitted to the traversers' attorneys, and in one of the
four an error was found, and then his officers said no more ad-
judications could be given in his absence. That had been
stated on affidavit and had never been denied. Now :one of
his officers was a person named Magrath, and let the House re-
member the tone and the emphasis with which that name had
been introduced to its notice by the Attorney-General forlreland.
He insinuated that there was something wrong in the Learned
Recorder's office, and he pointed pretty distinctly, and very
significantly, to Mr. Magrath as the party implicated in it.
Now came the horrible spiritwhieh threw its withering influence
over all—the accursed spirit of bigotry.—( Hear, hear.) Be •
cause Mr. Magrath was a Catholic, the Irish Attorney-General
had insinuated that he had been utterly regardless of his duty,
and was most probably the person who had abstracted the fif-
teen Catholic names from the panel which was to
try the Catholic traversers..-(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
So that the Irish Attorney-General would make it out to be
thus—that they are so in love with grievances in Ireland,
that they actually strike their own friends off the panel, in
order to get a verdict against the traversers; and be able to
come to the House of Commons with a complaint.—(Cheers
and laughter.) But if Mr. Magrath had been guilty of
this dereliction of duty, why was not the whole affair sifted
—and why was he not instantly dismissed, and punished, as
he ought to be, for filching the public property in
order to serve his own private purposes ?—( Cheers.) He
(Mr. Roebuck) had therefore a right to say that the Right
Hon. the Recorder of Dublin had not been sufficiently care-
ful in his duty. He for one could not say much for his judg-
ment, and he would say nething'of his honour.—( Hear, and a
laugh.) On the 28th of December the Recorder returned to
Dublin, and sat in his Court, and on that day he stated pub-
licly he had given tho book to the Sheriff. On the 27th a no.
tice had been served on the traversers to strike on the 3d of
January, so that that notice had been served before even the
book had been handed over to the Sheriff, and the book was
not in the hands of the traversers themselves, until the 3d of
January.—( Hear, hear.) So that between all the time from
the 24th Nov. to the 28th Dec. nothing had been done, whilst
everything had been driven off, so that at the last moment there
was nothing but hurry and confusion.—(Hear, hear.) What
was the consequence of that? That, when the 3d of January
came, the copies of the panel having only just been furnished,
the objection was very properly taken by the traversers'
attorneys, that they were not prepared to strike,
the prosecutors having only just handed over to
them the copy. And yet they heard from the Learned Attor-
ney-General and his associates these constant complaints about
delay. Delay !—delay, indeed ! Why, delay was proper. It
was not only justifiable to seek it where it was necessary, as in
stated
the i t
House
to plainlye contradict
n andtr ad i
c broadly—and this case, for a fair trial, but it was a duty to do so. Now, he
him—that
a n d t
hh
ee
proceedings
aonnyt the man
partin
of the traversers were perfectly fair and justifiable, and that they
did only that which was due to themselves, and to the just
administration of the law, in taking every advantage
they could, in order to secure their trial by a fair panel.
Again, why had the Attorney- General denied to the traversers
a list of the witnesses' names. That Right Hon. Gentleman
said lie would not give it on account of the way in which Mr.
Bond Hughes had been treated. But Judge Perrin said dis-
tinctly the traversers had a right to this list of names. Judge
Burton held the same opinion, and even Judge Crampton
tacitly admitted the right, but said they had applied
too soon for it. What said the traversers then ?
They said, " Give us the names ten days before
the trials, and we will be satisfied." That most fair and con-
siderate offer was refused.—(Hear, hear.) Did not that show
the spirit of the party—the spirit that pervaded the entire pro-
secution from the beginning to the end? Good God! if there
had been a man with the slightest particle of generosity in his
bosom, to guide and direct these trials, would such pitiful
proceedings as these ever have been heard of ?—(Hear, hear.)
He (Sir. Roebuck) would fancy a man, an Attorney-
General—even then he had him in his eye—( Cheers) —who
would have carried on this prosecution as he had followed up
other public duties, in such a way and in such a spirit as to
command respect, not only for himself, but for the law whose
power he had to evoke.—( Loud cheers.) To proceed, how-
ever. The indictment was found at 4 o'clock in the after-
noon ; but the traverser& did not get a copy of it until nearly 7.
The law allowed them but four days to plead, and yet the
Irish Attorney-General, the copy of whose indictment was
not delivered, had even actually required the Court to count
this first day as one of the four days allowed to plead in.—
( Hear, hear.) There was a specimen of the man who talked
so much about delay.—(Cheers.) The Attorney-General
said that throughout the conduct of the traversers there was
nothing but unfair fighting for delay. He (Mr. Roebuck)
had now, he thought, shown the contrary of this
assertion. He had shown, he hoped, that there was fair and
necessary fighting for delay on the part of the traversers, and
most indecent haste on the part of the officers of the Crown.
—(Cheers.) Now there had been a motion made for quash-
ing the panel on the ground of fraud. The traversers said they
could prove fraud ; and he (Mr. Roebuck) believed they were
in a position to do this, or, at all events, to substantiate a
charge of most culpable negligence. Why the judge himself
had said it was a case of grave suspicion. Now he (Mr. Roe-
buck) wanted to know, why was not the allegation in the affi-
davit, charging fraud, at once met by the Crown with counter-
affidavits, and denied?—(Hear, hear.) That charge ought to
have been instantly met and disproved, and, instead of that,
it had been shrunk from and avoided.—(Hear, hear. )
Now lie would have challenged the fraud. The Attorney-
General did not do so. He went to trial upon the demurrer,
because he was afraid to try the issue.—(Hear, hear.) He
had a right to say, and the country had a right to say, that
justice was wholly tarnished by this mischievous demurrer.—
( Hear, hear.) But that was not all. The Attorney-General
for Ireland stated that he had no alternative in this case but to
go back to the panel of 1843, or put off the trial
till the panel of 1845 should be formed ; he was
therefore determined to persevere. Now for a moment
allowing that he had no other alternative, could the traversers
have been worse off if he bad gone back to the panel of 1843,
than they were by being tried by that of 1844? By fraud or
neglect, they were deprived of their fair chance ; so that, under
any circumstances, by going back to the list of 1843, they could
not have been worse off, and might have been better. Then,
was it necessary to hasten on the trial when they had a fraud
charged on them, and not disproved, and one that was believed
by nine-tenths of the population? Common prudence would have
said—put off the trial on any condition—go back to the list
of 1843, or wait for the list of 1845, but don't try with a list so
suspected.—( Hear, hear.) But the Attorney-General had an
alternative, the alternative of a common jury. What hap-
pened? The leading counsel for the traversers said, discharge
this jury and we will consent to the Sheriff returning another
list of respectable persons from whom the jury should be taken.
That offer was refused. He contended that the Attorney-Ge-
neral ought to hive moved to discharge his own rule, to have
taken a common jury, and allowed the traversers to have been
tried by that. In challenging that jury he might have said—
that ratan is a repealer, that one a member of the Repeal Asso-
ciation. The latter fact might be a fair ground of exclusion
from the jury, but the former could not ; a member of the Re-
peal Association was included in the accusation; the being a
repealer only could not form a fair ground of exclusion. As it
was, it was clear that the persons left were quite of the op-
posite opinions to the traversers they were as much partisans
as if they had been repealers.—( Hear, hear.) A repealer, pro-
vided he was an honest man, ought to have been taken on the
jury quite as much as any other. Now, he wanted to have
it explained how it was that a common jury was not
taken ?—( Hear, hear.) Every precaution might have been
used; but it was not taken, and the only conclusion he could
come to was this—that the Attorney-General would not have
dared to strike off those whom he would have wished to strike
off, and that the special jury was taken because he believed it
would give the Crown a better chance ; therefore the common
jury had been refused. So much had been said on the ques-
tion of the jury panel, that he should not trouble the House
any more on that point.—( Hear, hear.) But he must say
there was much that went to show the existence of great causes
of distrust and suspicion around the whole proceedings—around
the whole prosecution. lie was not there to say whether it
was fraud or accident; but it so happened, unfortunately and
fatally for the purposes of the prosecution, that there were cir-
cumstances connected with it that utterly destroyed its moral
influence both in that country and in this.—(Cheers.) Eng-
lishmen would not endure to see the forms of law thus trifled
with—thus perverted—thus wrested to the purpose of those who
employed them.—(Loud cheers.) And they might depend
upon it that, after all their array of legal forms,
they had only come to this conclusion—they had converted the
Hon. and Learned Member for Cork into a species of political
martyr, and turned the tide of English feeling in his favour,
which his own imprudence—he would give it no harsher name
—had turned from him.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Before
that trial, his (Mr. Roebuck's) feeling was strongly against the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman. But since the trial com-
menced, he had seen oppression practised under the forms of
law, which had been perverted to bad uses, in a manner dis-
graceful to the whole country—(oh, oh, from the Ministerial
benches, and cheers from the Opposition)—and he said at once
that his feelings of indignation against the former proceedings
of that gentleman were much changed.—( Hear, hear.) He
still deeply lamented the unwise, the mischievous, and the im-
prudent course he had pursued ; but still he said that unwise,
mischievous, and imprudent as that might have been, they, in
endeavouring to cheek him, had done much more mischief—
they had done injustice.—(Cheers.) The Attorney-General
for England had said that it was extremely difficult to draw
the line between arguments that were legal and arguments
that were fraught with mischief. He agreed with him. It
was extremely difficult to say where began the danger
and mischief to the State. When a man was en-
deavouring to bring others to his opinion, so long,
as he observed the forms of law, preserved the peace,
and as long as every meeting was perfectly orderly, he wanted
to know how they made it illegal? To bring multitudes to-
gether, that was not illegal, because they were peaceable.
Then what made it illegal? Their construction of the law.—
The object of the people was legal; the means they employed
were legal—namely, the holding of large meetings. But they
at once drew the inference, and came to the conclusion, that
it was intended to overawe the Government by force, not be-
cause any alarm was caused, or any force employed, but because
of the vast numbers of which these meetings consisted.
He agreed v ith the principle that it was exceedingly difficult
to say when this mode of proceeding was legal, and how soon
it became illegal, when the object was to make a whole people
of one opinion. But they had convicted the traversers—they
had convicted them by means of their jury—(oh, oh, and iro-
nical cheers)—but they had not convinced the world.—
( Cheers.) No one ever doubted that the parties convicted on
the charges of riot in Wales were guilty, there had never been

vernment, or in any set of men who did not
prove themselves worthy of that confidence ; and
on this occasion there. were strong grounds for not placing
that confidence. Ireland was now in a state bordering on civil
war. The disruption of the empire was threatened. There
were two particular considerations which should be always re-
membered in considering the state of Ireland. They could not
be separated. The first was the physical condition of the great
mass of the people, and the second, the political and moral cir-
cumstances connected with that physical condition. He be
lieved it was admitted by every statesman and writer of autho-
rity who had treated upon the subject, that the Irish people
were the most wretched of any population on the face of the
civilised globe. With every possible means of producing
wealth, and comfort, and happiness, notwithstanding all the
gifts that nature had showered upon:them—although that people
were capable of attaining everything necessary for human hap-
piness, and were capable of being elevated to a high state of social
refinement—notwithstanding all these circumstances, he said
Ireland was the most miserable country in the world. But
what was stranger still, she was united to the most powerful
and the wealthiest of nations—to a people proverbial for their
sense. of liberty and independence of spirit—yet she was the
mo;t degraded and the most abject of all countries. He asked,
were not these circumstances of themselves sufficient to war-

pared to adopt that sentiment. Why, the Courts of Common
Law were the cradle of their liberties instead of their grave.—
( Hear. hear.) It was from the common law they derived some
of the first principles of their liberties. Why, the trial by jury
was a portion of the common law—an institution from which
they derived one of the most important of their privileges.
That was not the only instance. Who pronounced general
search warrants illegal ? They had been issued by the Secre-
tary of State, and had been used for one hundred years;
but when the subject came before the Judges, in
the year 1770, they were pronounced illegal, as having
no foundation in common law. The first effort made on behalf
of the human race towards the extinction of slavery was made
by the Courts of Common Law in the case of the negro Somer-
set. After coming to this country he had been re-shipped,
but was brought from board ship by habeas corpus, when it
was decided that the liberty of every human being was com-
mensurate with the shores of this country.—( Hear, hear.)
It was this made Curran say that the moment the slave
touched this country that moment the chains fell from around
him. It was by a decision of the Courts of Common Law that
the first move was made towards the abolition of domestic
slavery. There were some cases so immediately affecting the
institutions of the country, that though they stood on the same
foundations as other parts of the Constitution, yet in point of
the general sense and feeling of mankind, they were not to be
meddled with except in extreme cases. No doubt any law that
existed might be made the subject of discussion and petition ;
but he would ask any one, if they would venture
to propose an alteration of the Law of Succession
in this country to what it was in France. There
was, and very properly, a delicacy in meddling with such
matters. He thought it would be matter of great regret, if
it were not felt that there were certain parts of the Con-
stitution which ought to be lightly dealt with ; and the same ob-
servation applied to proceedings in Courts of justice.—( Hear. )
Now, his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Wor-
cester, had come down to the House on the sixth night of
the debate, at a period of the evening when it was impos-
sible to reply to his speech. He believed that a fairer or a
juster man than the Hon. and Learned Member for Wor-
cester did not exist on the face of the earth. This was the
sincere testimony of one who had known him for thirty years.--
( Hear.) But he would put it to him, whether comments might
not have been made on the course to which he had referred.
The lion. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) and the
Hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) in their speeches,
had insinuated that the doctrine of conspiracy was of a very
questionable character. He (the Attorney-General) begged
to assure those two Hon. Gentlemen that the doctrine of con-
spiracy was as old as the common law. If persons combined
and confederated together for the purpose of any illegal act,
beyond a doubt they were guilty of conspiracy. He recol-
lected a case wherein a number of officers resigned their com-
missions at the same time. No one doubted that every officer
had a right to resign his commission, but what made
these persons guilty of conspiracy was the circumstance of
their agreeing to resign at the same time. By combining and
confederating together to resign their commissions at the
same time they forced their commander into a dif-
ficulty, and endangered the efficiency of the service.
When several persons combined together, they became pos-
sessedj of a power which singly they could never have been
invested with. By the law no person was held responsible for
departure from the truth. But when persons combined to cir-
culate a falsehood, they thereby were guilty of a criminal act.
It was even laid down by Hawkins that where two persons
combined together to maintain a certain report, they were
actually criminal, whether the report were true or false. He
(the Attorney-General), however, was not at all prepared to
concur in that doctrine. Now, what was the accusation in the
late trials in Ireland? In turning to this subject, he did not
wish to utter a word that was unfavourable to the defendants.
He should endeavour to avoid this, considering that the verdict
was still impending, and considering that judgment might be
arrested by a motion in the Court of Queen's Bench. Now
what was the charge? It was that the defendants combined
together to procure a repeal of the union, by producing senti-
ments of alienation in the minds of the united empire, and by
intimidatins, the Legislature. That was the charge, and he
was astonishedt to find any one complaining of that charge,
on account of the reluctance evinced in bringing it forward.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester said the late
trials were similar to the trial of Lord George
Gordon. They were no such thing. The charge
against Lord George Gordon was for levying war. The
charge in the present case was for conspiracy. Conspiracy to
levy war was not treason. But this case was not even a con-
spiracy to levy war, it was a conspiracy to overawe and intimi-
date the Legislature, and by that means to produce a repeal of
the union. It had been asked, why did you allow these meet-
ings to go on ? why did you not indict the parties for these
illegal acts as they were committed? why had they not in-
dicted one person for a libel, another for attending an unlawful
assembly ? why had they not proclaimed the illegality of these
meetings, rather than let Mr. O'Connell fall into a trap ? Why
the House must recollect that as far back as the month of May,
there had been a discussion in that House on the subject of dis-
missing magistrates for attending those meetings. Could the
Executive give better proof of their opinion of those meetings?
--( Hear, hear.) But why did they not indict persons for at-
tending those meetings? Why that very Dublin jury, which it
had been stated had been packed to obtain a conviction per
fag aut nefas, had found that these meetings were not illegal.
—( Hear, hear.) That should be stated to the credit of the
jury, and also to the credit of the Government, which had ab-
stained from indicting persons for attending those meetings.
The subject had engaged the anxious consideration of the Go-
vernment. He had, during the summer, seriously considered
it, and he had great difficulty in forming any deliberate opinion
as to these meetings. He agreed with his Hon. and Learned
Friend, the Member for Worcester, that numbers did not con-
stitute illegality. Persons might be assembled in great num-
bers to witness a review, to see her Majesty go to the Court,
or for other purposes. It was clear that numbers did not con-
stitute illegality. It had been asked why a proclamation had
not been issued to put down those meetings before ?
Suppose those holding the meetings had hurled defiance to the
proclamation, how was the proclamation to be enforced ?
( Hear, hear.) Nothing could have been more rash than to
have interfered with those meetings.• If a Dublin jury could
not be got to determine that those meetings were illegal, what
chance could they have had with a Tipperary jury? The
Right Hon. Gentleman had said last night that in 'Tipperary it
was impossible to get a jury to do their duty.
Mr. SHEIL denied that he had made such an assertion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would not insist on it. As
the Right Hon. Gentleman had forgotten that he had said it,
he would forget that he had ever read it. Then it was said
why not prosecute for libel ? He confessed he had a great ob-
jection to prosecute for libel.—( Hear, hear.) Perhaps he
ought not to say so as Attorney-General, but he confessed he
had a great objection to do so, because the law itself was in
such a state.—(Hear, hear.) The administration of the law
was also in such a state.—( Hear, hear.) Whenever he was
consulted as a private lawyer on the subject, he always advised
the party who consulted him not to go to law. He used to say
that hard names broke no bones—( Hear, hear)—and that the
first statesmen of the day were abused and villified.—(Hear,
hear.) He might have been wrong.—( Hear, hear.) It
was hard to say where fair discussion ended.—(Loud
cheers from the Opposition benches.) He knew no
question more difficult than to determine at what period the
law officers of the Crown were justified in taking up a publica-
tion and pronouncing it libellous.—( Hear, hear.) He be-
lieved that Lord Campbell, when Attorney-General, pro-
secuted once, and only once, in the case of Mr. Feargus
O'Connor. He believed that neither Lord Denman, nor Lord
Lyndhurst, ever filed an ex-officio information. The Right
[lon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) mentioned some-
thing last night about the army, and asked why they did not
prosecute the writer of the article on the army, who was a Mr.
Power. lie (the Attorney-General) recollected a prosecution
against a person named Barrett, who was convicted and im-
prisoned. He went to gaol for a letter which appeared in his
paper, the writer of it being Daniel O'Connell.—( Hear.)
Why, therefore, should the Right Hon. Gentleman taunt the
present Government for not prosecuting Mr. Power.—( Hear. )
When the Whigs prosecuted Feargus O'Connor, and he got
eighteen months' imprisonment, the last act they did when they
were leaving office was to release him from gaol. When he
(the Attorney-General) prosecuted Mr. Feargus O'Connor for
libels and seditious meetings, Mr. O'Connor acknowledged the
justice of the course pursued by the Government. With re•
spect to the course pursued by the Attorney-General for Ireland
a similar ecerasauiodtifd.o
in the case of the allegation of fraud, he had only pursued the
same course which he (the Attorney-General) laid down upon
irr
elt
chi t
eee wouldd jr o
Crown
‘vnaisk
iitt
wa againstgaasi whomagainst
tt
sttha
et
alle-
gation
against agentf waseds
hbetyhr
iewirb oomror when the fraud was committed. The allegation on chal-
lenging the jury was for fraud committed by some person un-
known. He did not desire the right to inquire into this
allegation, but he agreed with his Right Hon. and Learned
Friend that if this affidavit had been produced in Westminster
Hall, it would not besentertained for a moment, for the
Judge would ask the deponent when he swore he was con-
vinced there was some fraud by a person unknown, " Did you
do it yourself ?"—( Hear, hear.) He did not at all mean by
this illustration to attribute anything dishonest to the
agents of the traversers ; but only to bear out the
assertion of his Right Honourable and Learned Friend,
that the course pursued on those trials was the same that would
be observed in Westminster Hall. He sincerely hoped that
this discussion would have the effect of soothing the feelings and
enlisting the affections of the Irish people towards Englishmen.
He responded to the sentiments expressed by Hon. Gentle-
men on the other side of the House, and was quite ready to
agree in any remedial measures which might be proposed. On

rant an inquiry? There was something still more dangerous
in the condition of Ireland. There was that hostility among
her people that would poison all the springs of happiness, even
were they blessed with the utmost fruitfulness. The people
were divided against themselves, and there was not only a na-
tional antipathy against England, but a hatred of one another.
He did not allude to this anti-English feeling with any view to
exasperate the minds of Hon. Gentlemen, but it was a fact
which could not be lost sight of in the discussion on the pre-
sent motion. The national feeling of the people of England
was warmed and animated by the recollections of the deeds of
their forefathers ; all these great achievements were connected
with the honour and glory of their country, and, as such, they
prided in them ; but when Irishmen looked back on the past
history of their country, they found that from one step to another
there was nothing but humiliation, degradation, and misery
caused by it. Every feeling of his mind was aroused by the
hatred of his country, and it was impossible for an Irishman
to love his native land without hating its oppressors; other-
,' ise there was still worse mixed up with the social
condition of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He alluded to
the religious bigotry so prevalent in that country,
and which, still more than any other cause, operated in pro-
ducing animosities. They held Ireland now by the strong arm—
they occupied Ireland by military force. Let any soldier, and
he doubted not that there were many Gallant Members on the
other lido of the House of that profession, look on the map of
Ireland and consider the force which was spread over it. And why
had they done so ? Because they could not govern Ireland with
affection—they were driven to govern her by force. The pre-
sent means of governing Ireland, and keeping down the discon-
tent of the people by a combination :of circumstances, did not
find a parallel, were they to search the world from one end of it
to the other. Even their army did not preserve peace, for at
this moment the peace of that country was preserved partly by
their arms and partly by Mr. O'Connell.—(Hear, hear.)
They were much indebted to him for the peace and compara-
tive tranquillity which the people of Ireland had exhibited, and
it was this singular circumstance which should increase their
solicitude. The condition of France and America should not
be forgotten ; in fact the peace of the world at this moment
depended on mere accident. If anything were to happen
to that sagacious and prudent monarch who sat
upon the throne of France, the peace of that
country could be no longer calculated on. Then, if they
looked to America—it was true they were at present on
friendly terms with them—but if they read the speeches of
members 'of Congress, they would find exhibited in there a
feeling of commercial rivalry between the two countries ' • and
in their negotiations with that proud republic, she would not
forget the disunions of this country nor the discontent and dis-
satisfaction prevailing in Ireland, in any arrangement she
might be called on to make with them. He had listened
with great attention and pleasure to the speech of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, and agreed with
him fully in the lucid and noble sentiments ho had advanced,
of the history of the connexion of England with Ireland, and
the causes which led to the latter's present condition. He
also agreed in the deductions which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had made, but the Right Hon. Gentleman, when he
came to 1829 made a leap to 1834, and very im-
perfectly and slightly touched on the intervening period.
An overwhelming majority was returned to that House
immediately after_ the Reform Bill; was passed ; but Ireland,
instead of being conciliated, was coerced. The Irish people
said, "what are we to expect—we are coerced into obedience
—we cannot hope for liberty, for those who are at the head of
liberty in England are despots in Ireland." It was a remarkable
circumstance that Ireland, unfortunately, was a sort of battle-
field for both parties in this country. The wrongs of Ireland
were the armour of one party, while the maintenance of religious
truth, as stated by the Right Hon.;the Recorder for Dublin, was
the armour of the other. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Re-
corder for Dublin assumed to himself infallibility, and yet
how lately had he had reason to know how fallible he was, for
he had been found incapable of arranging accurately the names
of 700 persons. The cause of the discontent in Ireland could
not be far off. They would find it if they looked back to the
past history of the country. The cause of the discontent was
not to be found in the agitation, at whose
head was the Hon. and Learned Member for
Cork. His power arose from the state of mind, and the wrongs
which had created that state of mind, amongst his own coun-
trymen. The disease lay deep—it lay in the feelings of hos-
tility to the Popish religion which existed in this country, and
which unfortunately had been so much increased of late. In
spite of all their good intentions, Hon. Gentle-
men on the other side of the House were • looked
upon by the Irish people as the representatives of that bigotry.
Say what they would, the people of Ireland could not rid
themselves of that belief. No doubt that a great number of
the appointments of the present Government were made in a
perfectly honest spirit. But what did the people say? They
said, " Aye, it is all very well for them to claim the reputa-
tion of being liberal and benevolent towards us, but all our old
enemies in this country are in power. He (Mr. Roebuck)
held in his hand a book containing the trials of a party
of Roman Catholic gentlemen who were tried for conspiring
for getting up petitions to Parliament, in the year 1811. There
were many persons living who were present at those trials, de-
fending the Roman Catholics ; and there were persons living
created
Thefirst
who were present at those trials, for the purpose of accusing
them. Those parties were now in power in Ireland, and those
we e
ritleli founded, thed
Irishnee dr cittns
dwho people.h e
much suspicion in the minds
of
discontent of the Irish people was
question that suggested itself was,
whether anything could be done to relieve them from
that discontent under which they laboured. Would
woupersons
the repeal of the legislative union do this ? His answer
was, that, as far as he could judge, repeal would only aggravate
the discontent.—( Hear, hear.) The minority in Ireland
were powerful and rich, and if repeal were to take place to-
morrow, it would be impossible to maintain the connexion with
this country by the mere verbal bond of allegiance to the
Crown.—( Cheers.) He could not conceive a greater mischief
that could happen to Ireland than repeal, except the con-
tinuance of a military government. At the same time, he
must say that the repeal of the union was an object that
was perfectly competent for the Irish people to desire. It
was a perfectly legal object -for any man to seek..
The Solicitor-General had said that it was illegal to attempt to
remove the Act of Union. He gave no authority for this
opinion—he merely stated it upon his own judgment. He
(Mr. Roebuck) agreed with his Hon. and Learned Friend,
the Member for Worcester, in saying that. the repeal of the
union was a perfectly legal object for any man to seek.
Whether it was a prudent object was another question. He
trusted that the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork would
see, from the experience of the last few days, how much
better it would be if all feeling of national animosity between
the two countries were abolished. If we could avoid all
national antipathies, how much stronger, happier, and better
we should be.--( Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member
for Cork must havel seen, within the last few days, that
there was a feeling of sympathy in this country for the people of
Ireland, and he must have been gratified at its exhibition.
Now he (Mr. Roebuck) would ask the Government whether
they were determined that Ireland should be ruled by force ?
—( Hear, hear.) There must either be force or concession.—
( Cheers!) And what would force do ? It would only leave
them at last where they were.—( Hear, hear.) With an army
of 21,000 men in Ireland—with an army of constabulary,
whose numbers had not been stated—with Ireland a mere
garrison from one end of it to the other—did they expect that
the people of England would look calmly on? Discontent
would remain in Ireland as long as the cause of that discontent
existed. The cause of discontent lay deep in the
institutions of the country—for those institutions were
created by force and fraud. Suppose an outbreak
were to happen in that unfortunate land, and the Government
were by arms to coerce the people to peace ; what torrents of
blood would flow—what waste of countless treasures would be
made before that object could be accomplished, and yet this
would be the result of a Government of force, and such must
be the Govetaiment of Ireland while the Protestant Church
remained in its present state.—( Hear, hear.) ;The Hon.
Member for Wakefield, the other night, asked, in a very sig-
nificant manner, why the Government did not deal with the
Church in Ireland in the same manner that they had dealt
with free trade in England, namely, acknowledge the principle
of equilisation, but take their own time to carry it out. That
was a very artful suggestion, and might be attended with bene-
ficial consequences to themselves. But even this would not be
conceded, for the declarations on the part of Hon. Gentle-
men opposite were of as marked a character as they
ever were. "No surrender " was still their motto,
The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Recorder of Dublin, sup_
ported the existing
• • Establishment in Ireland, because he said
that the only mode of maintaining the truth of religion was by
means of a State Church. Now, if they carried out that prin-
ciple, the Church only became a means of persecution
persecution might be narrowed, but the spirit and the bigotry
were there.
Mr. SHAW—(emphatically)—No.
Mr. ROEBUCK was not criticise the Hon.
going to Gen-
tleman's intentions.
Mr. SHAW—What did I say
Mr. ROEBUCK—The Right Hon. Gentleman said he
would maintain the Church, because it was the only true sup-
port of religious truth. Now, he (Mr. Roebuck) would main-
tain that any person who said he would uphold the Church as a
means of maintaining what was called religious truth, was a
persecutor in spirit. Seeing that kind of
_persecution coming
upon them, the people of Ireland had a right to rise up against
it, and say that they also bad an infallible religion ;
and, inasmuch as they were seven to one, there was
seven chances to one that theirs was the true religion.
He was not speaking of the religion of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man. No doubt he was perfect in his faith, but he ought to

SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1844..

a doubt raised about it. Yet they had just as many difficulties
there, but they convicted the prisoners. No one had found
fault with them. No man had said it was wrong. The ver-
dict was not only according to law, but according to opinion.
They had not done so in this case, their proceedings had lost all
moral effect. And now he asked what had their Government
of force done ? With their army, and with their verdict,
where were they then ? Were they not on the very verge of
the difficulty they had all along contemplated ? Were they
not beholden to the very man whom they had brought vrithia
the law for the preservation of the peace of Ireland? Now,
what were their means of getting rid of the difficulty ? He
wanted to relieve the physical misery of Ireland. That could
not be done until they got rid of dissension and produced peace.
This they could not do while the Irish Church question re-
mained unsettled. He was not going to conceal his opinions
on this subject. He was not for raising any new establishment
in that country ; but he was for putting down the present
system. He would take the proceeds of the Irish Church as
they fell in, and apply them to the great object of the education
of the people. And what was the objection to this course ?
He wanted to know why a Church was maintained that did
nothing it ought to do, that gave rise to dissensions and strife,
and was the actual cause of all the misery existing in Ireland ?
Why should not such a Church be put down, and peace and
happiness restored ? He would tell them why it was not. It
was because they were a:raid that the principle which they
applied in Ireland would be applied in England. But they
might take this difference with them ; in England they
had not a Church which was the Church only
of one-seventh of the population. ( Hear, hear.
The Church of England was the Church of a
large portion of the people, who loved, who followed her. But
the Church of Ireland was a domineering Church. It was a
sinecure Church. It was a Church that was detested by seven
parts out of eght of the people. There was a great difference,
then, in the position of these two Churches, and if a time should
ever come when the Church of England should only be the
Church of one-seventh part of the population, he believed he
knew his countrymen well enough to say that it could not be
maintained as an Established Church one single day. The
Irish Church was maintained by the bayonet, and the bayonet
alone. Was Christian truth—was Christian feeling—was any
purpose for which a Church was established—in any way for-
warded by such an establishment? For the sake of securing
the peace and happiness, not only of Ireland, but of England,
and not merely of England, but of the world—considering all
these great interests, was not their path clear ? Let them
look before them. It only required some man who had that
within him that should teach him the way to lead the people.
If being that man who could teach as well as govern, he should
place himself above the prejudices of his time, and by incurring
that great responsibility, make himself worthy of receiving that
great reward of his magnanimity—the admiration of a grate-
ful posterity.
Mr. O'Connell and Mr. F. Shaw rose together ; the former
gave way, and
Mr. SHAW proceeded to offer some explanation to the
House respecting the jury lists and the affidavits, but was com-
pelled to resume his seat from the loud cries of " Order,"-and

4 Spoke," which arose on every side.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose amid the most marked silence and li
attention on both sides of the House. He said,—There is not
an individual in the House who will suppose I have risen for
the purpose of saying anything about myself. There is no one
in the House who, after I have concluded, will have discovered,
if he had not known it before, that I have any personal inter-
est in these trials. I have come here for another
purpose—l have come to make one protest, to ask
one question —to protest, in the name of my coun-
try, and on behalf of my countrymen, against the commission
of one additional injustice to the people of Ireland. I have come
to ask the simple question, How is Ireland to be governed?—
(Cheers.) There is one fact—a fact which it is impossible
for any one to deny—that no one country in the world has
ever been so oppressed by another as Ireland has been by Eng-
land. This fact was clearly illustrated—it was demonstrated
by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh
the other evening—the greatest crimes that one country ever
committed against another have been perpetrated by England
against Ireland. 'Then, let us see what was the state of Ire-
land previous to the union, and what is the condition of that
country now ? Was Ireland in a state of abject distress pre-
vious to the union, and has she since risen to great plenty and
prosperity? Is that the fact ? Before the world,
I ask the Right Hon. Gentleman directly opposite, is that the
fact ? Why, Sir, for eighteen years before she lost her self-
government it is on record that no country ever made such
rapid strides in prosperity. Mr. Pitt did not say that he
sought the union to make Ireland a greater commercial coun-
try than she then was. No, that would have been a good ar-
gument for the union. No, but he said that Ireland exported
three millions and imported only one million worth of manu-
factured goods, so that in his argument in support of the
union, he admitted as one of his reasons for its adoption,
that Ireland was then in a condition of great and rapid im•
provement; but, not content with letting that prosperity
go on, he anticipated that he would greatly increase
it on account of the union. How few are those
here now who remember that prophecy of his ? But
has it been fulfilled ? Is Ireland now in a state of prosperity ?
I am not here now speaking of corporate rights or Parliamen-
tary power, but I speak of commercial and agricultural prospe-
rity. You talk of the agitators in Ireland exaggerating her
misery and exciting discontent, but to you I attribute the
misery of Ireland. Many of you, no doubt, have read an article
in the Times of yesterday. They have kindly inserted it for
my purpose. They quote the sentiments of Kohl, a man who
has travelled through all Europe. He is a native of Germany,
and cannot, therefore, he charged with prejudice or partiality.
And he says that, in all his travels, he never knew, or met, in
any country on the face of the globe so much
of misery ; and this—this- is the result of your forty-four
years of boasted union legislation.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") Then there is another gentleman, with certainly
not a euphonious name, a Mr. Wiggins, and he says, that
he firmly anticipated that on the granting of Catholic
Emancipation prosperity would immediately ensue; but he
has now published his book, and he declares that poverty has
increased, and that nothing can equal the misery of the people.
Then, how can it be said that the popular leaders have ex-
aggerated those miseries? Why, have not the Poor-law Com-
missioners declared that two million three hundred thousand
people, out of eight millions, are in a state of the greatest
destitution ? that is, one-third of the population, are in this
miserable condition. You have enumerated the population,
in 1821, 1831, and 1841, and Captain Larcom has calculated
that among the agricultural population 70 per cent. are in a
state of destitution, and in the town population it exists at the
rate of 30 per cent., and among the latter no family has more
than one room to live in, and for the most part, several families
are crowded into one room. Between 1821 and 1831, the po-
pulation rapidly increased, but fell as rapidly from 1831 to
1841, until it fell to 70,000 less. How then can we account
for such facts as these ? All this has occurred since the union.
It is all owing to the union. How do you govern Ireland?
You can take your legal proceedings. You can send your
armies over there, but can they mitigate this misery ? Oh !
how little should I care for these trials, if I could
but arouse this House, if I could but open the eyes of the
people of England to the state of Ireland.—(Cheers.) With
all my delinquencies on my head, I found among the people of
England a generous sympathy, which I never, never can forget;
and if there be wisdom in statesmen you will rally now and
mitigate the suffering condition of the people of Ireland.—
( Cheers.) Ohl but what little chance have we of witnessing
such a consummation ! How many and how deep are the pre-
judices we have to contend against. The union between the
two countries should have been real—their interests should
have been identical—their franchises the same—their
rights the same. You should have had no difference—no
more than you have between the counties of York and
Lancaster—that was Mr. Pitt's object. Ile proposed Ca-
tholic Emancipation, and he offered to establish religions free-
dom ; but some very conscientious men advised the King to
withhold that measure, and Mr. Pitt, in consequence, withdrew
from office. Now, where is the man to be found who does not
regret that emancipation was not then passed ?—( Hear, hear.)
I think that man must be the most stupid of men who does
not regret that the union was not a real one, and that it has
been but a nominal one. The Catholic clergy might then have
accepted of a provision from the Crown. You might then
have made your own terms with the clergy and the
people of Ireland—( Hear, hear)—but the cry of " The
Church in danger," then, as now, infatuated you.
Lord Byron has said that the identification of the union between
the two countries, was like the identification of the shark with
its prey, and I must not forget that the very first At* of Par-
liament passed by your United Parliament was, an Act suspend-
ing the Habeas Corpus Act, and proclaiming military law in
Ireland—that was your first Act ; and then, when the first peti-
tion for Catholic Emancipation was presented, in 1806, Mr.
Pitt opposed it—he lost his honour, but he retained his place.—
( Hear, and cheers.) The Whigs shortly came into office ;
they abolished the slave trade in the colonies, and they allowed
Catholics to attain rank in the army and navy. We were then
engaged in a terrible, war. We were in open contest with the
most powerful individual that had appeared for centuries.
Would not the Right Hon. and Gallant Officer opposite (Sir
H. Hardinge), who has displayed so much bravery in the field,
and who has shed his blood for his country, think it cruel to be
refused his rank and deserved honours, because he was not of
the dominant religion ?—( Hear, hear.) And there were those
in Ireland, who were anxious to seek for those honours, and
who aspired to the glory of fighting for their country. But
you raised the No Popery cry again.—(Cheers.) The cry of
" The Church in danger" was raised.—( Cheers.) It was
raised to such a dangerous extent as would now appear incre-
dible. Some of the Whig gentry, who represented counties for
a number of years, lost their places in consequence of the votes
which they gave in favour of the Bill. Was ever popular in-
sanity greater ? Could any thing be more absurd ?—(Cheers. )
You had a fine opportunity to do justice, but you perpetrated a
greater absurdity—( Hear, hear)—which may vie with that of
1805. Mr. Perceval came into office, and he declared per-
petual hostility to the Catholics. He took his stand on the
union—( Hear, hear) just as your cry now is, that one of the
articles of the union declares the preservation of the Church.
—(Hear, hear.) But we got emancipation, and the Church
yet remains.—( Hear, hear.) Why do I discuss those things ?
Will those discussions have no effect? I heard a Noble Lord,
who, from his high rank and station, is destined to be one of
the leading statesmen of this country, deliver sentiments
which show, and papers which I have received from Glasgow
tend to strengthen the opinion, that the answer
will be in the negative. Mr. Perceval declared against the
Catholic claims, and was determined that they should not be
extended any further. We then perceived that we must de•
pend on our own exertions. Every exertion was made to put
us down. One prosecution was instituted which succeeded,
Mother failed. But the combination went on.—( Cheers.) The
power of Napoleon was spreading and increasing, which sti-
mulated you to realise the strength of Ireland in combination
with you. Friendly counsellors governed Ireland then, to
whom you never showed proper gratitude. You had the Ca-
tholic clergy of Ireland—alarmed at the progress of French in-
fidelity, which was spreading like lava throughout Europe—
with you. And it was owing to the Catholic priesthood that
Ireland was kept in combination with you. The Catholic
priesthood preserved Ireland for you. It was the greatest mis-
take that ever Napoleon committed that he undervalued the
importance of Ireland to this country. And I hope that pro-
vidence, in its care for this country, had blinded him on that
occasion.—( Hear. ) As you became weak you became wise.
Napoleon had gained the battles of Bautzen and Lutzen, and it
was thought (bat he was recovering his power. The
House of Commons, for the first time, declared that
the next session they would take into consideration the Catholic
claims with a view to some settlement. In the interim Na-
poleon's power was broken, and he became a wanderer and an
alien, and the pledge of the House of Commons was forgotten.
It was not safe to emancipate the Catholics, and they could
not be trusted. Then we struggled for ourselves. We had
our monster meetings, our provincial meetings, our simulta-
neous meetings of the parishes thoughout Ireland. You at-
tempted. a prosecution then; you failed, and you revenged
yourselves by the Coercion Bill of 1825—the first Coercion Bill
that was passed for Ireland. I recollect, then, that the leading
agitators, the Bishops, and persons of every class repaired to
London. We threw ourselves on our knees before you, we
begged as beggars would do for alms, that you would take the
state of Ireland into your consideration. You might then have
obtained guarantees and powers, which you would now have as
little chance of getting as you would of turning back the
Thames to its source.—(Hear.) We would even have received
with gratitude what would then be considered a bountiful fa-
vour.—( Hear, hear.) You lost that opportunity,. and we
again had recourse to our own resources. You rejected th our
offers, and we returned to Ireland. We raised the cry, at
there was nothing for us but
" Hereditary bondsmen know you not,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow."
That was Ireland's motto. We assembled together, and the
people were indigamit at the offer which were made. Eman.