The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-22 00:00:00

LLOYD'S SHIPPING.

LOSS OF THE MARGARET AND BARONET.
The following has been received at Lloyd's from the Fo-
reign-office, dated Feb. 17, 1844:
" Sir—l am directed by the Earl of Aberdeen to transmit
to you, for the information of the Chairman and Committee
for managing the affairs at Lloyd's, a copy of a dispatch from
her Majesty's Consul-General in Tunis, reporting the wrecks
of the British brig Margaret, near Cape Farina, and of the
brig Baronet, on the Island of Galita.—&c. &c.
(Signed) " CANNING.
"To Wm. Dobson, Esq., Lloyd's." _ _ _

"Tanis, Jan. 14, 1844.
"Sir—lt is with regret that I have to report for your in-
formation that the brig Margaret, Richard Lander, master,
on her voyage from Tunis to Hull, was wrecked on the sth
instant, near Cape Farina, to the westward of Cape Carthage,
in a heavy gale of wind.
"The brig Baronet,Wm. Wylie, master, on her voyage from
Smyrna to Liverpool, was also wrecked on the 9th instant,
on the Island of Galita.

" I am happy, however, to say that no loss of life has oc-
curred, and I have availed myself of the first opportunity to
forward part of their crews to Malta, attd shall use every ex-
ertion for the recovery of stores, &0., belonging to the above-
named vessels.—l have, &c.,

(Signed)

~ THOMAS READE."

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
UNION-HALL.

Yesterday Daniel Carroll, a lad of 18 years of age, was
brought before Mr. Cottingham, charged with wounding
James Farrrer, a youth of the same age, during a quarrel in a
public-house.
The complainant stated that on Monday night he went
into the Alfred's Head, where he met the prisoner, whom he
had previously known, and that they had some high words
respecting a female with whom they were both acquainted.
In the course of the altercation he (complainant) threatened
to strike the prisoner, who immediately attacked him, and
stabbed him with a penknife in the cheek, and followed up the
blow by thrusting the point of the knife into his groin, and
inflicting a dangerous wound, and then he ran out of the house.
The prisoner, in his defence, admitted that he had quarrelled
with the complainant respecting a female, and that during
the altercation he was paring his finger-nails with a pen-
knife ; that the complainant struck him a severe blow in the
face, which made his nose bleed, and that in the struggle
that subsequently took place between them, by an uninten-
tional accident, he wounded his assailant with the point of
the knife.
Two witnesses were examined in support of this defence,
after hearing whom,
_

Mr. CorriNonAm having made some strong observations
on the frequency of the use of the knife in quarrels, which he
characterised as an un-English and ferocious way of attack-
ing an assailant, sentenced the prisoner to pay a fine of 51.,
and in default, committed him for two months to the House
of Correction.

Frederick Sparkes was charged with stealing five pieces of
Orleans cloth and a ►ece of Coburg cloth, from the shop of
Messrs. Gordon and Walker, it the Blaekfriars-road ; and
also with committing a violent assault on one of the shopmen.
John Keach, the shopman, whose head and face exhibited
severe marks of violence, stated that the prisoner, in the
most impudent manner, walked into the warehouse that
morning, while he was engaged, and taking up the above
articles ran out with them. Witness, on seeing the act, ran
after the prisoner, who dropped the• articles, and turning on
his pursuer, attacked and beat him in a most severe way,
and would have escaped had not a policeman come up, who,
after a struggle with the prisoner, secured and took him into
custody .—He was committed.
William Lowden and Robert Ryder, two Deptfiird omnibus
drivers, were charged with racing against each other on the
road to town, in the course of which a woman bad a narrow
escape of being run over.
The offence having been clearly established against the de-
fendants, who, it appeared drove rival omnibuses, and had,
according to the testimony of one of the defendant's own wit-
nesses (a conductor), been racing against each other for the•
last two months,
Mr. COTTINGIIA3I said that it was just such a case as he
would be justified in exercising the powers the late Act had
given him, and, instead of inflicting penalties, which he was
aware could be easily paid, at once committing the defend-
ants to prison. The Magistrate added, that the safety of the
public demanded that he should exercise the powers on the
present occasion, and he should therefore commit the defend-
ants to the House of Correction for a month each.

GREENWICH.
Yesterday police-oonstable Edward Vincent, 131 R, applied
to Mr. Jeremy, at the opening of the Court, to ask the Ma-
gistrate's advice as to what course he should pursue under
the following circumstances :
He said the woman Dickenson had been in his custody from
the day after the murder until she was committed under the
Coroner's warrant to Newgate, on Monday evening last, when
she was accompanied by her husband and two of the parish
officers of St. Paul, Deptford. After taking a heartrending
farewell of his wife, they again entered the coach which
had brought them to town, and proceeded over Blackfriars-
bridge, on their return, when Mr. Dickenson said, " If he
had known it had come to this, he would have stopped it ;
he would have put an end to his misery, and that he had
something that would soon do it." Upon this statement
witness remarked that he must search him, when the
wretched man drew a paper from his pocket, upon which was
written—" My dear Salth, I would sooner suffer death
rather than you should go to Newgate. I have got a razor
with me, which I will give to you, or I win finish what you
have left undone." They, proceeded on until passing the
Brighton railway, in the Kent-road, when it was remarked
what a change would be effected in that spot in twenty
years. Dickenson answered that he should not live to see

any changes of the sort. They arrived about eleven o'clock
at the house where the frightful affair had taken place, and
on entering the room he demanded him to give up a razor
which he suspected he had about him. Dickenson said he
had left it at George's, meaning his brother. He then said
he would search him, upon which Dickenson drew the razor
from his pocket, saving, " Oh, what have I done in giving
you that paper. I wish you would return or destroy it, as it
will be evidence against my wife." Witness said no it will
net, but most likely be the cause of saving your own life.
He pulled the razor out of his pocket with the utmost re-
luctance, saying that his life had been saved for that night.
He then left him somewhat composed.

Mr. JEREMY said the contents of the paper were more a
threat to his wife than himself, and airected the offi-
cer to go immediately to Newgate, and inform the
Governor of the circumstances, so that directions might be
given to the turnkeys that Dickenson should not be ad-
mitted into the presence of his wife except in the presence
of two turnkeys, as from what had transpired he appre-
hended that violence might be attempted.
HAMMERSMITH.

Yesterday a young man named Charles Hochley, a harness.
maker, residing near Hammersmith-terrace, appeared before
Mr. Paynter, the sitting magistrate, on summons, charging
him with having on the 13th instant improperly fired a gun
loaded with ball, in a public thoroughfare, whereby he had
endangered the life of a lady named Booth.
The defendant pleaded guilty to firing the gun, but denied
that he was aware that he had done injury to any person.
Mrs. Booth, who was accompanied by the Rev. Mr. Parrin,
one of the curates of Hammersmith, stated that she was the
wife of Major Booth, and resided at No. 20, St. Peter's-
square, Hammersmith. On the day in question she was
standing about twelve o'clock in the back drawing-room,
when she felt herself struck by something, but she could not
at the time tell what. Presently, however, she discovered
that one of the panes of glass in the window had been per-
forated by some round substance, and she afterwards found
a musket-ball in the room, which she had no doubt was the
missile that struck her. She had no idea that the defendant
had fired the gun intentionally to do her harm.
Robert Stone, a boy living in British School-house-lane,
Chiswick, which is at the back of the houses in St. Peter's-
square, deposed to seeing the defendant fire the gun twice in
the lane. He fired it at a piece of paper stuck against a tree
as a target, and the first time loaded the gun with shot, but
the second time put in a ball.
Police-constable Earthy, T 103, deposed, that on the last
witness pointing out to him the direction in which the de-
fendant fired the gun, he found it was directed towards the
residence of Major Booth. He had also examined the win-
dow, and had found that the frame was also shattered by
the ball.

Mr. PAYNTER said this was a case in which he felt the
highest penalty the law allowed ought to be inflicted.
Mrs. Booth requested that the defendant might not be se-
verely punished, as she was convinced his conduct was quite
unintentional.

Mr. PAYNTER consented, under those circumstances, to
mitigate the fine to 20s. and costs, or twenty-one days' im-
prisonment. _

- The defendant immediately paid the fine, and was dis,
charged.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 21.
HORSE-RACING PENALTIES SUSPENSION
BILL.

Mr. WAKLEY entirely disagreed from the Hon.
and Learned Member for Gateshead, who had com-
pletely mistaken the nature of the present Bill. Its
object was to frustrate the designs of certain parties,
who were sueing others for the very acts which they
themselves had committed.---(Hear, hear.) His
principal object in rising was to call the attention of
the Right Hon. Baronet to a practice that was preva-
lent in that town. He alluded to the practice adopted
by the stipendiary magistrates with respect to little
boys who were brought before them for playing at pitch
and toss. It was only two days ago that three little
boys, who believed that they had been enjoying a per-
fectly innocent amusement, were brought before the
magistrates and were sent to the treadwheel at the House
of Correction, for playing at pitch and toss. Now, he
thought it would be well if the Right Hon. Baronet the
Home Secretary were to intimate to the magistrates that
he disapproved of the practice pursued by them, and
order these little fellows to be at once liberated.
After a few words from Mr. M. GIBSON and Mr. J. S.
WORTLEY,
Mr. CHRISTIE withdrew his amendment.
Mr. HUME wished it to be distinctly understood
that though he had expressed his intention not to oppose
the Bill, he should consider it a violation of the under-
standing which had been come to if the Bill which had
been sent to them from the Lords was proceeded with.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was clear to
him that Hon. Gentlemen were labouring under a mis-
apprehension in regard to this second Bill. It was
simply a Bill of Indemnity to protect from future conse-
quences the witnesses who gave evidence on the subject
of games and gaming before the Committee of the House
of Lords. It enacted that the certificate of the
chairman of that Committee should protect a party
giving evidence from the penalties he might otherwise
be subjected to for acts disclosed by him in that evidence
—but it interfered not with the operation of the law be-
yond those specific circumstances.
The House then went into Committee, the preamble
was postponed, and on Mr. Wortley moving the first
clause,
Lord HOWICK said—Unfavourable as he was to
betting in any shape, he still agreed in the propriety of
the Bill ; but he hoped the House, in passing it, would
effectually guard itself against doing anything
that might encourage the habit of betting. The
measure before the House went to stop not
only the actions which were commenced, but also
any that might he commenced. This he could not ap-
prove of. He looked upon the question of betting which
now existed in this country, as most injurious to the
character, morals, and happiness of the people. This
Bill was brought forward nominally to shelter persons
who had been taken by surprise ; but its practical ope-
ration would extend further. Perfect warning had
now been given to all parties, and the House ought
therefore to take care that any gaming which hereafter
took place, should have no protection from it.—
(Hear, hear.) With this view he should move
that after the word " thereat," in clause 1, line 41,
the following words should be added—" Such gaming or
betting being alleged to have taken place previous to
the 21st of January, 1844." The protection would thus
extend to the time at which he (Lord Howick) was
speaking, and no longer.
Mr. WORTLEY quite concurred with the Noble
Lord in his desire to devise means for limiting and re-
gulating betting in this country. He did not think that
the Noble Lord was quite aware of the effect of the
clause as it at present stood. The Bill itself was only
to extend till the end of the session, or for three months,
or some other limited time, to be filled up in Committee,
the object being to give time to the Committee to sit and
report to the House, when the House, doubtless, would
frame and pass a measure founded on its recommenda-
tions for checking and regulating betting and games. If
the House did not pass such a measure, the present Bill
would drop at the period named for its duration, or at
the end of the session, and all parties would be again
liable to the penalties which the present law ordained,
Just as much as if the relief now proposed had never
been heard of.
Lord HOWICK said the upshot of this would be that
if the Committee did not report for some time, or if a
measure were brought into Parliament, as wouldprobably
be the case, towards the end of the session, then, on account
of the lateness of the session, such measure or Bill would
be withdrawn, and the proposed enactment now before
the House would be renewed in a hurry, and then al-
lowed to settle down quietly as a permanent law. Thus
they would practically protect the betting which they
now wished, or professed to wish, to put down or regu-
late. The object he desired to attain could only be ef-
fected by the introduction of the words he had submit-
ted to the House. He thought it fair to state, that if his
amendment was rejected, he should regard the Bill as
giving facilities for betting, and in that view he should
deem it his duty to divide against it in its subsequent
stages.—(Hear, hear.)
fir JA VIES GRAHAM said he agreed in the general
principle of disfavour as to betting laid down by the
Noble Lord (Howick), and he was most anxious that the
whole subject of gaming should be referred to a Com-
mittee, with the view of devising means to place checks
generally on betting. If the Noble Lord opposite was
determined to persevere in his motion, he (Sir James
Graham) would feel bound to divide the House against
him.

Mr. HUME approved of the proposition of the Noble
Lord, because it would be likely to guard against future
betting. A due notice would be given by this law, that
every person who betted did so at their own peril; yet
the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home
Department said he felt bound to vote against the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord.

Mr. DARBY said that at the expiration of a certain
period—either three months, or twelve months, or two
years, parties could prosecute these actions again.
Lord EBRINGTON thought, perhaps, it might be
as well if an immunity wore given for all past transac-
tions, and leave the law alone until the Committee
should have had time to consider the matter more care-
fully. However, he should support the motion of his
Right Hon. Friend, if the House divided.
Captain RODS said that, as almost every one now
made up a book on the Derby—(Hear, and laughter)—
the present measure was of some importance. He
thought the Hon. Member for Gateshead had quite mis-
stated the cases to which he had alluded. He thought
the best plan would be to let betting alone, and it would
cure itself What was to be deplored was, that bets
came into a court of law. He thought the Legislature
should never have interfered with betting, and as for
their injuring the morals of the people, it was down-
right humbug. Those races he contended had a good
influence on the community ; they brought persons of
different parties together, and the fury and rancour of
party strife was forgotten in the pleasures of the amuse-
ment.—Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON professed that he would rather
have the Bill as it stood. A Committee was about to
be appointed to consider the general relations of the Bill,
and he thought it was better to leave the Bill as it was.
After a few words from Lord EBRINGTON and Mr.
S. WORTLEY,
Lord G. BENTINCK said, that no bets on the en-
suing Derby races could, according to the present state
of the law, be the subject of qui tam actions until the Ist
of September next.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but
none took place, and the Bill was proceeded with.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses, with some verbal alterations,
were agreed to.
On the_ preamble being proposed,
Mr. CHRISTIE said he thought the line in the pre-
amble, which stated that the parties against whom the
late qui tam actions had been brought, were ignorant
that in making the bets respecting which the actions
had been brought against them, they were committing
an illegal act, should be struck out.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said he had believed,
and he believed still, that in making bets on horse-
racing he was doing a perfectly legal act.
Mr, ROEBUCK sai4 this was It novel principle of

~~

law. What could they say, if a person -chargedsi`th
any offence were to plead ignorance of the law 7 o
a plea had never been allowed; on the contrary, the Pie,
of ignorance of the law was always conside7ed of nou
fence.
itn4
Mr. MILNER GIBSON agreed with his Hon:
Learned Friend the Member for Bath, and hoped to
t
be would adhere to his determination to have tboo
foolish expressions, which stated ignorance of the
was an excuse for breaking it, struck out of the preasaL"
After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY,
Mr. ROEBUCK said he would put a case in
crw".
A poor man comes to London; he is hungry, el ow
a crust of bread, for whicb he is brought before wecro
gistrate. He asks is he not allowed to beg for a 4
of bread when he is starving in a Christian countrEs
the answer is, " No, 'tis against the law;" and, lltrwZdo
he protests he knew nothing of the existence a
a law, he is sent off to prison. Surely this was
like one law for the poor end another for the rich.
0,
Sir R. PEEL said, although he did not wish it:cto
Parliament interfere much in matters of retros Fs:,
legislation, still he thought this was one, in w hie. ioe
liament ought to interfere to prevent gross We' to
being done to many individuals who were subjeetio
the most enormous and ruinous penalties, and he she j•
consequently record his vote in favour of the Bill.t he
doing so, however, he felt called upon to say tha
thought that part of the preamble which stated that I ti
norance of the law was an excuse for breaking it she
be omitted.
After a few words from the Attorney-General,
Watson, and Mr. Roebuck, egt
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE objected to the strthinehoe
those words, and he thought the Bill would never
arrived at its present stage, if the preamble did not ijoat
taro those words. He heard an Hon. and Ga.noe
Colonel opposite (Colonel Peel) say that was igo°"—fe•
of the law, and was loudly cheered. It might be eenh •
nient for Hon. Gentlemen opposite to establish su.
dectrine, as it would give a plausible answer to sirtro
who might come forward to vindicate the cause ,°f ,the
people, by saying that they did not intend violet/14,
law. There had been such things as monster nieel7r
—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He had frequently 'fie
plied to this House for the commutation 0f
punishment of individuals whom he thought a
erred through ignorrnce ; and he had been as frequeeto
answered by the Government, that ignorance of sia
law was no excuse for breaking it. He should Pe rof
cn having these words retained in the preamble,
would divide the House upon the question. •
the
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when
numbers were—
For striking out the words Bl
Against it
Majority __s4 •
On the motion that the word in the preamble "actsee;
brought by common informers, or by other actual lose
be omitted,
Mr. HAWES opposed the omission.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY insisted on retaining the 104#
in the preamble.
Mr. HAWES said that the statute entitled 151
informers to bring those actions. That was reco b
by law, and therefore it should not be, as it were, slig,a teoa
in the preamble. He thought it would be he" 01
state, as a reason for introducing the present Bill,
penalties had been sought for disproportioned to
offence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not see egthili_.,oll
unreasonable in retaining the words regarding ee'ist
informers. Perhaps it would have been better 000
" whereas certain actions had been brought, and wile 10
no action of the same kind had been brought for •
years, it was expedient," &c.
or ite Mr. WATSON saw no reason why the causes for
troducing the present Bill should not be fully rutted
the preamble. 10
_
.0
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY was in favour of the prz
as it stood.
fiat)
Sir R. PEEL suggested the propriety of the Wok
Gentleman who introduced the Bill, omitting the If
objected to.
After a few words from other Hon. Members, ,
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY consented to withdraw we
jectionable words. tp
Mr. DUNCOMBE said it was very extraordl
witness the persevering manner in which the 11011_. sbe
tleman (Mr. Wortley) had insisted upon retainWoor
words, and had instantly abandoned them at the bee,
gestion of the Right Hon. Baronet. One word hw
suggested—then another and another—and there IL knowing where those alterations would stop. Ither
been said that actions had been brought by 11° nw"..00t
than common informers ; such was not the case--° oft
oft
had been brought by actual losers. They should .01
been at this momeut listening to the eloquence, fer
edified by the instructions of the Attorney.Gener
Ireland,. if it were not for those trivial alterations- vat
Mr. BROTHERTON thought the House had tIO
wasting its time in protecting gentlemen who brokeird
law. All the arguments that had been used in fhl'li-te
the Bill were in defence of gambling, andseemed ta'
been brought in rather for encouraging than abatlng..,o
vice. If there had been only 10,000 L at stake the.
would have heard nothing of the Bill; but as fie'
amounted to half a million,, and as the betters belo
to the aristocracy, the Bill had been introduced. ,„„,ore
After a few words from Mr. Horsman, Mr. S. "
ley, and Mr. Milner Gibson,
Mr. HUME said the only reason for bringing ooe
Bill was to shield certain noblemen and gentlemen
had trangressed against the law. It was said those „o p
gentlemen and noble lords were in ignorance of the Hoye
He thought that was a very insufficient excuse. Vltile
individuals had ample means of ascertaining what.. a
law was, and ignorance should not be admitted Tier
plea. It was not admitted in the case of the Dorelle-eci
labourers, and why should the poor man be prow"
to know the law better than the rich man? th.
After a few words from several Hon. M•roberg
preamble was amended in the form suggested bi
Attorney-General for England.
The Bill, having gone through Committee, was tIO
ordered to be reported.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.—IRELAND.
_ _

The Order of the Day having been read, , V 2
Mr. SMITH (the Irish Attorney-General) rO., setbst
resume the adjourned debate on Ireland. He sin",;.T.
the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester ('" of
Wilde), having thought it right to bring forwarto
the close of the debate last evening, charges agall19:00
with respect to the mode in which the
~„r dss
prosecutions had been conducted, and 110
gone the length of imputing, not, Pere
in express terms, but by insinuation, ides
ters reflecting personally upon him, he tr:re 11
the House would bear with him while he laid he'llis
the defence which he had to offer.—(Cheers-) 00
course he proposed to adopt was this. lie bad,3t,
had the good fortone to hear the whole of the de big
bis
but only portions of it ; and he therefore though 1010
best course would be to go, step by step, over the
egoso
proceedings from the first, and state the re big
which had induced him to come tf. the
own conclusions upon every branch °: to th*
case. It would be necessary first of all to adyer`bovia%
period when the informations were sworn. Not t Ill°
brought those informations with him he could net 00
state the precise day, but he believed it was on the 15d`
or 16th of October. The first circumstances svul„ ;0 0 .
curred after the informations had been sworn Wlle
by e
course of a most extraordinary nature adopted ie pe
of the defendants—a course, he thought it the ra%teat'
cessary to advert to because it, to a certain
cieet to
regulated the proceedings he adopted with res 0001
the applications made by him to the Court of
_,,
ail
Bench. A few days after the informations Ind!'
sworn, there was not a witness who, it was SUPPi°S
...
been examined, or would be examined, but was P` •
...,1:
in every street in Dublin as a spy, an informer' P'
convicted perjurer.—(Loud Ministerial cheersj toll
wished the House to know—he especially wisiltw• e,alr,„
in it who were always declaiming about liberty, ./ ue--„ Orr'
impartiality—that on the 20th of October, in ever/000
in Dublin, large bills were posted with thass..„d the
words in large letters at the head of them, '''' tett
names of the witnesses in equally intelligible ollrue,y4,.P.
—(Great cheers from the Ministerial side.) °the'"
ness was more particularly pointed at than lope'
He alluded to a gentleman known to mallY tit., o°'
of that House, and who had been &equal.! 06
ployed by the Commons' Committees J bil
taking of evidence—a gentleman who geasr u
can o.
0
testimony in so straightforward, manly, and or 6.
y
manner, that Mr. O'Connell, in addressing the 3 opli'
, CO lid
the occasion of the trial, had warmly and ina.t-1v
_IV ,
mented him. He alluded to Mr. Hugh sr!
cheers.) And this was their spy, their inforra,w 'irbis
their convicted periurer !_._ (Ministerial oheers.4.,etice.
was the man who, or the purpose of defeating 601,100,
it was complained of in every newspaper inregaisi..t
had been directed to swear whatever Was es he'vt
for the purposes of the Government.—(There 11'4 OA
an observation made by some Hon. M
supposed to be by Mr. Sheil.) He begged,' not 'an
-
Member's pardon, but his interruptions ember,h; soil.
noy him.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. SHEIL--I did not interrupt. I dsitidoluiol"tlelleiell
Sir H. WINSTON BARRON—The observall
from me.
Mr. SMITH (in continuation and addressaillagerMs tti
Sheil). He should before sitting have some .1 eheeri-ff
touch upon in reference to him.—(Ministerias ,of
This being the course adopted at the very
ion_t
.se;t, viere
proceedings, before even the bills of ind.eT be iv!9
sent up, it was clear to him (Mr. Smith) t2?..un'ted.
.11'
not to have a fair trial with the parties inlPit to
,1?.7
B.
was clear to him that every impediment wase
thrown in the path of justice, every annoyance Ou_
the witnesses, and all concerned.—(Loud ne.et;,,," tverf,
the 20th of October, informations for perthe'd dill_
tendered against Mr. Hughes, before t__ bog
sional magistrates—this extraordinary coonl"
into
_.„O
taken in order to turn the accuseri _to ow_
accused—to enable those charged with csr riacteerg.,
The a rddi v
ias ni
odu a l
maak eg
icsht
rear
tgee ss
raegf
ua isne sdt ot toll eat rfaf
tkefett&ei
wece g
e__too,.
formations.—( Hear, hear.) Four days
mission Court was opened before two s? a
charge
hi 4
But the parties who had thus preferred
Commission Court during its sittings ~.,o,etebe
perjury against Mr. Hughes never went
earbe,fnur:enty-r:
but allowed them to pass by. On the 3d oi. F.; 4 in'
being the second day of term, the . bill 'ed 00
tdhicetm6tehnot f
Nwaosvemlabiedr, before the
engtrans_tdill.plbreaYoLgitabteitoi
the course that was adopted was this : Analarinet t.:,
was made to the judges for a mandamursee_yo the 10,
divisional magistrates, to compel them to
.ea,
o,ect i
formations against Mr. Hughes. What was a) 'Mt woo
intended,th i s appeal o
u?
Mr.To get
Hu Hughes'
et
'l3 the
evidence,information
thetop iwagheueiechis ,„If.o rd
aid
to The judges pu
damns byPill'
to them, when they applied for their ma, n,
you not
ttnohoestegugoLtuolpdtbh
jielulCsryoommif
tihnedinsestssmioitentuinCtgos.guratirsotmmThriegagobible:- --to
this,
dnoMbi nilistoefri indictment chr h
dividuals who deClAillied fiS o uela9dh everudwlyasttboeeeticnl
about an %"?'
ciP°sl4l
411

beg

0 20'
croft
L2'7o
terl

r
tioo
0r

00

thd
, tild

, ,;

inistration of justice, and who adopted a course
which he should not condescend to designate as it de-
„„„served to be designated.—(Cheers.) The text step in
the
Proceedings was when the bills were found, on or
about Bth November. The bi!ls of indictment having
bee
„ n brought down, the defendants required copies of
"'era ; and, under the 60th of George the Third, they
l'ere entitled to them free of expense. Fortunately for
ana (Mr. Smith), the first step of the defendants in the
Preceedings had p pout him un his guard, and he antici-
P4tted that every attempt at delay would be made ; and
tae he Proceeded ho would prove to the House how de-.
nninedly this intention had been carried out.—
(heara.) The defendants applied for eight co-
t,es to their surprise, if not to their annoy-
tii'ee, the eight copies were ready prepared for
4tn•—(Cheers.) But they were intitled to certified
pies, and the slightest clerical error might have been
eductive of the greatest evil. The consequences had
ueen foreseen, and the greatest portion of the enactment
tsCnearly all of it—had been printed, and, fortunately,
:eight copies turned out perfeAly correct. The next
,!•el3 of the defendants was to give nine notices of mo-
:lett, the object being to avoid being forced during the
nu to plead the general issue, and thus again to
c.,,,ase some more delay.— (Hear, hear.) Next
;re the application to the Court on the ground of the
in'ellil"aes names not being indorsed on the back of the
mctinent, chnent, and the application of three of the parties
anply for a copy of the names of the witnesses—the
il!** being thus varied by the traversers in order the
it better to ensure delay.—(Hear, hear.) He considered
ttZessary, knowing as he did well, the motive for
kJ? Proceedings, to oppose vigorously all these
did thus brought before the Court, and he
en so successfully, the whole Court being
,„,a,ainiously in his favour. Another application was
Zoe on the same day to set aside the rule to plead, be-
Zsek_the caption of the indictment was not annexed to
eatended
again was he successful in his opposition. All
tended for was to abide in these, as in other pro-
f(ZaCa, by what, as he thought, had been the
uni-
Practice of the Court. Here and here alone the
.„,—"as not unanimous in his favour. Mr. Justice
pr-'''n took a different view of the law and the
th:ctien to what he (Mr. Smith) did, but the
Tee others coincided with him.—(Loud cheers.)
next step taken to create delay, was to tender
Qietts in abatement to the indictment. This was on
gash
the 14th of November. Then they tried to
sti e indictment because the witnesses whose evi-
'AZ was to support it had not been sworn in Court.
defend two matters he resisted, and successfully. The
whrldants had taken five days to prepare their pleas, to
he,,eh he put in a demurrer, and on the 20th of liovem-
for' he (Mr. Smith) applied to have the demurrer fixed
igisiltPitient on the following morning. When he ap-
, tits or this, he was encountered by the argument that
Iplemetendants were entitled to another four day's rule.
it the case was argued on the 21st of November, and
ia't:Las decided unanimously by the Court. that the pleas
en latenient were invalid, and that the demurrers taken
elis:e Part of the Crown must be allowed.—(Leud
‘,„4.) So that, at length, after ever effort for delay,
fro% every plan had been resorted to, he had extorted
kw the defendants a plea that they were not guilty.
kg be wished the House to recollect that he was a
, t? officer ; that in all that he did herein he
tioasvat Performing punctually and faithfully the func-
Ast i'tttached to his public situation ; and he protested
tmoti,,,4 thus resisting the successive and never-ending
for delay, he was actuated by no personal feel-
toswhaterer, but solely by a sense of public duty.—
eyth Notice of the time for trial being given
lirst,Trown, the defendants opposed it on two grounds
sot ti„,at, from the magnitude of the cause, they had
airy to prepare for trial ; secondly, that the special
llist'"fE, for the year 1849, contained only 388 names—
llotas°l;til!ese names between fifty and sixty only were
*ere `-'atholics ; and that of these fifty or sixty there
;`,? about twenty-five that could be made avail-
' fit that they could not have a fair and impartial
tlte lf.it were to take place, as originally intended, on
ofof of December. He had enforced a plea
'2% ;" and he could have rejected
4134 re guilty
for a trial by another jury list,
oughtproper.—(Hear, hear.) He had been
;4,,L"Y the Hon. and Learned Member for Worces-
'lefc,co desiring to procure a conviction per far aut
,tl4at sv,ll°*, he believed the ground on which the re-
f% `"at the trial might he postponed until the jury
e
Ito °1 1844 was prepared—he said he looked upon it
;!telePasonable
Vti - What became, then, of the heavy and
aeitii:ns'aPutiitions which the Honourable and Learned
a, had cast upon him.--(Loud Ministerial
-
~" I he trial having then, with his consent, been
:A,'111,47 to the 15th of January, what did the traversers
sought to have it again deferred until the Ist
ett.) but to that he would not consent.—(Hear,
s'pied. . "11 the 29th of December, the lists having been
se,..saet.o the jurors' book by. the Clerk of the Peace,
i• • handed to the Sheriff. His duty then was,
at. ten days, to make out a special jurors'
1% the 3d of January the Sheriff waited
44, . NP9er officer with the jury list for
4tha, e,ot the charges brought against the Crown,
:steLivir. Mahoney, or one of his assistants,
Viejtot,-"A that he had applied to the Crown
? that the clerk of the peace should give copies
igatha.l7 list both to the traversers and the Crown,
t
lis Remmis would not consent. The reason
het, till this. He was in total ignm'ance of the jury
the *lle o'clock of the night of the 3d January ;
,ti,e_reklensidered they were not complete until they
li;sY Itot7e,sheriff's hands. Had they consented to this
have.., consented to give a copy of a jury
the tu fact, had no existencein point of law.
Vs:..slint4 of. November, it was agreed upon that the
be tried by the jury-list as revised the
. What was the nature of that revision ?
had been served by the attorneys for
led —exaers on all those citizens who were qua-
, L.,
se
11,43 as jurors, and who were Re-
'time e /Intl:tut:id before the Recorder. At the same
tpg hostile '
Re-
le
Was served by the same party on every
44, no, appear in
hertzonseive who was considered as. likely
ela
f to them that if they
was court to Support their claim, although
application_ would be
treeneto.have their names striick off. This was the act
ttsi of those p.erfeevt733. evrs,:htde, ing
'l3ollt th wb9 declaimed so much about liberty,
mealy ohjeci e Purity of the administration of justice.
%ette was to pick and cram the jury box with
ltsaListeriai Tint repeal opinions.—(Hear, hear, from the
Ved) e "enehes.) He (the Attorney-General for
hey
rib)
tonsented to the revision of the jury, in order
bpisdlir"fraers might have no excuse for saying
hi as haet,neen fairly and impartially dealt with ; and
I:oh:144(4d i'een stated by Hon. Gentlemen opposite,
4107(ltielsg,"Ifiti 8 to obtain a conviction. What was the
184,S Noe'-vre the new revision. In 1833, only 188 Ca-
,* talent Qualified to appear on the jury lists. In
ilL;;I!,s of e"ave Roman Catholics were so qualified.—
conkilear, hear," from the same quarter.) No
tht:u by oe entertained but the traversers had bane-
jevision of these lists, and in the manner of
th,
and the circumstances attaching to it, as
sen,,tleat tu`:ers of the Crown were concerned, he. felt
lieglttea r,:;,at a British public would refurn a verdict of
de irsithstanding the numerous charges that had
pee lON „ gainst them. The copy of the special jury
%% It qllPPlied to the attorneys for the traversers the
the th W," ready. Mr. Kemmis had made an
a' to • „CI)), p ornine o'clock on the night of
'me 4 the January the Crown had not seen a
~,'sCwees„,,,,sPecial Jury lists. The attorneys for
41104-4 to dr—', Messrs. Cantwell and Ford, pro-
tq aw 48 names from the list so framed.
~.enty„fe`Ltviere drawn, and then an adjournment
the I;''' (leek' hours took place to allow each party
e what names they should strike off from
t,,ffs`ei with gt'eat deal of misapprehension had been
bQ °C and resPect to challenging the. jury. In. . point
leu'ataa. in Point
141,6 e by bo of fact, he denied that striking off
me at..(ni_u Parties was in the nature of a chal-
ilit, B„nelr it`tr eers.) The Legislature never eontem-
roet„..e. thing when it passed the Act of Parlia-
tt wittOat
trt names were drawn from the list of
'ssad thi !se, each party had to strike off twelve.
th the st 2 Intention of the Legislature, when it
cede tint,ro lal Jury Act, that the parties who struck
1140,141.404 stofrona the special jury list should be
ttstaillieerin. state their reasons for so doing.—
ntly g from the Ministerial benches.)
b"serted, in the presence of the members
s are th.:lr, that it never was the intention of the
ttillsorend. in;" l;Freons, in striking off the names from
tc,4 thelv,_hteh should be called upon to state the
104 a!ieiste" .nenced them in so doing.—(Cheers
1-‘,7 side. „.21,,P benches.) It was a privilege given
it 'lve 4*cutiehao (11 r,y(e,a;_ hear.) The traversers in the
had the privilege of striking off
Ara thf, heel. ,44d„,, they availed themselves of
th-.een rem, why, then, should they claim to
)4: 12ttinti stai_which influenced the persons for the
pant of ja„rl''ing off the other twelve names ? On
`'ztt t'n'uarY a notice of motion was served by
loZett on3l:lsll.,a_sh the special jury panel, on ae-
tt:Y•qsletnbet. issue of certain names. The Hon. and
1 at t nerat I°l. Worcester said that, if the At-
Itoelo4 Quash England had been called upon to
t e,,,_ tea, •
le tad to for ,".JurY panel, he would have had a
sOmNI, to he r nis honourand his character to have
;)se )4'4'7
eye (Cheers, and counter-
'4l444.-„,tn to Olt Smith thouht that he had
deb ant "'lleere7Plain a the Hon. and Learned Gen-
treiee eft,reaptlesese.o'd The Hon, and earned Gentleman
Panel htell the House what was to be
40-‘l4
t:tcl been quashed.— (Loud cheers
al- to h enehes ) Now he (Mr Smith)
ld t e llou
state e one SG an. eountry what would
te this of of that proceeding. He
t 4 trite4eetl eo"dentl f although and
11 °*4 Net, ertian,ee_ z, or the Hon.
J,kain;haste confine iueci to think that all honour and
wow.] too the English law-officers of the
he ll that
\Otis, ---(Qh re lea, se Hon. and Learned Gen-
Mitt theta.) lIQ touch honour and honesty in
p f°lll1anFl 4 !'e _ would now explain to the
Coif ineonv.!na Learned Member for Wor-
NsaPeth-ttnid not h:rae,nt to explain. The special
4;lt. i‘te speti_vie been quashed except upon the
°, must ae Hon. special list for the year 1844 was
i4l'd(3,ried !enaen:khZlO, Learned Member for Wor-
of irerartud that there were other cases
/4,1444 Whet .• (Cheers esides that of the Queen
14 weak
weal, he was
s_from the Ministerial benches.)
liessttsltrned •Ottapitants'Yflng would not meet the views
SIN tister flenTher follir,t;ffice with whom the Hon.
ypa
would
y s mighttea ever
eer,
y onegossipp r hs
4t
it wouldll ; but th* Yv
son
n b
aeint-
:ll I It e(ilt
ji
."se to th
t° she LY have awnedat he could not legally or
Ie
wri listt hbw:::4BolBl9thtaeerdre t 0 s.
e addition of one
year 1844. bead he con-
Iv have and i affecting ever.y. other case
o.^o s• n the
fork e ths4 4 'led the •
Ju
kNs twei,e Panel of jury Panel, then he must have
;) 8,, Months last year, or postponed the
ttlikrtttakemPPose he *ah,eers from the Ministerial
been
hat of sheeted the former course,
peensaid by
Ron. preceding year, what
Gentlemen opposite,

seeing that in that year the proportion of Roman Catho-
lics was much smaller in the list than this year ?—(Hear.)
Now, what was the nature of the imputation which had
been cast upon the persons conducting the prosecutions
in Ireland ? It was founded upon an affidavit of Mr.
Mahoney, which had been adverted to by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Worcester, which affidavit was
of so extraordinary a character, that he (Mr. Smith)
ventured to assert that no Court in Westminster Hall,
and he spoke in the presence of his Hon. and Learned
Friends the Law Officers of the Crown—no
Court in Westminster Hall would have acted upon
a statement which imputed fraud, but which
failed to state how, and by whom, that
fraud had been committed. The affidavit stated that
in the belief of the deponent, a wilful and corrupt sup-
pression of the names of persons qualified to be on the
special jury list had been made. Now the singularity
of this swearing was, that it did not assert by whom
this fraud had been committed. Might not, then, the
imputation just as well attach to those persons who were
connected with the defence ?—(Loud cheers from the
Ministerial benches.) What was the course pursued by
Mr. M'Grath, the deputy clerk of the peace, who was
himself a Roman Catholic? What was the course be had
pursued ? Why he had actually furnished Mr. Mahoney
with the revised lists of the special jurors, while he re-
fused the same indulgence to the persons conducting the
prosecutions, although frequently applied to. This had
been stated in an affidavit by Mr. Kemmis.
Mr. SHElL—There was no such affidavit made.

Mr. SMITH could confidently assert, on his own
knowledge, that such was the fact. Mr. Keimnis had
told him over and over again that he was unable to get
any information from Mr. M'Grath.
Mr. SHEIL—He did not swear it.

Mr. SMITH continued—He held that it would have
been inconsistent with his duty to the country for him to
have consented to the quashing of the jury panel, whereby
a postponement of the trial would have resulted. Con -
sidering the state of Ireland, it was impossible for him,
consistently with his duty, to consent to anything which
would lead to a postponement. He contended that most
of the grounds upon which the affidavits of the attorney
for the traversers :rested were only derived from
mere hearsay, and he (the Attorney-General for
Ireland) thought that such evidence was not worth one
farthing. That affidavit mentioned the names of only
two individuals out of the eleven who were stated
to be the excluded Catholics but he had documents
which would prove that most, if not all, of those persons,
were members of the Repeal Association, and had taken
an active part in that agitation, and some of whom had
attended at and signed the requisition, calling the great
Mullaghmaat and others of the monster meetings.—
(Cries of " Name.") He should not enable the opposite
party to place their fingers upon him.—(Tory cheers.)
Mr. Kemmis had Sled au affidavit, stating that lie
believed the names of about ten Catholics only had been
omitted, and he had good reason to know that all those
were attached to the Repeal Association. He would ask
whether he was to blame, under those circumstances, for
not quashing a panel, and thereby causing con-
siderable delay in those trials.—(Tory cheers.) He
could assert that, in a particular case in this country,
when parties were tried for rioting, several jurors had
been set aside, on the ground of their belonging to
the disturbed district ; and he contended that the
Crown had a legitimate right to challenge those
who were connected with the Repeal Association.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester had
charged him with not selecting a common jury, for if
he had done so, he dared not to have set aside the ju-
rors as he had done ; but this he (the Attorney-General
for Ireland) denied, and would state to the Hon. and
Learned Member, that shortly after his appointment, to
his present office, he had, without the slightest recom-
mendation from the Government, written circulars to the
different crown solicitors, on the mode of forming com-
mon
juries, giving them directions in accordance with
the directions of Chief Baron O'Grady, and those direc-
tions had been also issued by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Clonmel, who had held the same office
which he He should now allude to the conduct of
those who: bad criticised his conduct. He was pre-
sent on the occasion to which he was about to allude—
he was present, and certainly a more extraordinary
proceeding he had never witnessed. A regiment of
soldiers marched into the town of Carrick- on-Suir, in the
county of Tipperary, and an altercation ensued between
them and another detachment of soldiers stationed there,
The townspeople took part with one body of the mili-
tary, and Mr. Pearse, the chief constable, a gentleman
of high character, finding the riot becoming most alarm-
ing, ordered the picket to fire, when a boy was shot.
The Right Hon. and Learned Member for Dungarvon
prosecuted Mr. Pearce in that case, who was indicted
for wilful murder. What was the course pursued by
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman ? He set aside
36 jurors, and of the first 30 so challenged 29 were Pro-
testants.--(Tory cheers.) He (the Attorney-General
for Ireland) would ask, was not that something very
much resembling a packed jury?—(Renewed cheers)—
and those were the parties who set upon him, and said
he dared not set aside the jurors from a common jury.
A charge had been brought against him by the
Honourable Member for Cork during this debate, and
he felt sure that Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman would retract it when ho knew the facts.
He had said that he (the Attorney-General for Ireland)
had been in the habit of compelling the attendance of
the traversers every day in court. He would state what he
did ; and what he would do again under similar circum-
stances. He believed that, with the exception of the
day on which Mr. O'Connell stated his case to the jury,
and that on which the Right Hon. Member for Dungar-
von also addressed the jury, Mr. O'Connell was not in
the court, on an average, any day for more than ten
minutes ; and he (the Attorney-General for Ireland)
never inquired whether he was or was not, and would
have thought it unnecessarily harsh and ungenerous if
he had done so. Again, with respect to Mr. Duffy,
when that gentleman was unwell, he was informed that
he might suit his own convenience as to his hours of
attendance. What the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Cork had stated, in one instance,
with respect to the trial being stopped to com-
pel the attendance of the traversers, was true.
They were present at the swearing in of the jury, in
order to prevent any legal technicality from being
raised by counsel. On another occasion, where the
Hon. Member for Limerick took the chair at the Repeal
Association, where the subject of discussion was
avowedly the State trials then pending, Mr. O'Connell
left the Court for the purpose of being present there,
and he (the Attorney-General) would appeal to English
practice, ifs traverser would be allowed to leave the Court
to attend at the meeting of an Association which formed
one of the principal features in the indictment?—(Tory
cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Wore ester
had complained that the Government had not sooner put
down this agitation, and said that the Government had
been laying a trap to ensnare the traversers, But in her
Majesty's speech in the House of Lords on the 24th of
August, the repeal agitation and the state of Ireland was
the subject of strong remark ; and, he would ask, was
this a sufficient intimation of the intentions of her Ma-
Majesty's Government, given many months before the
Clontarf meeting? How was the determination received
by the repeal party when it reached Dublin ? Why,
there was a meeting of the Association, and a kind of
counter-speech emanated from that body, and the
people were told that they had no one to depend
upon except themselves, and that they had
nothing to expect from the Imperial Parliament.
Monster meetings were held, and the people were told
that the Government were about to go to law with them,
that they bid the Government defiance, and that " old
birds were not to be caught with chaff."—(Hear, and
laughter.) They set the law at defiance, and carried on
the agitation in the very teeth of the speech from the
Throne; and yet he was told that the Government de-
layed giving en intimation of the course they would
pursue. The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester
had :alluded to the indictment being one for misde-
meanour and not for treason, and wondered that this in-
dictment had not been framed in a similar manner to
that against Lord George Gordon; that then Lord
George Gordon had gone to the door of the House to
overawe the Legislature by his personal intimida-
tion, at the very door of the House, and that con-
sequently his crime deserved to be indicted in
a different manner. He (the Attorney-General)
thought the Honourable and Learned Member's law
would not meet with much approbation in Westminster
Hall. It was of no consequence whether those monster
meetings were held in Palace-yard or 60 miles from the
House of Commons. Some of the most eminent Judges
of the English Courts had decided this point The Hon.
and Learned Member had also alluded to the count of
the indictment charging the traversers with conspiracy,
but he (the Attorney-General) would tell him where he
found that count. Why, he got it from Mr. Maule of
the Home-office, and it was the one framed by the law
officer of the late Government in the trial of' Frost and
Edwards in Wales—(Laughter from the Tory benches)—
and he had the original document in his possession now, if
the Hon. and Learned Member wished to see it. Now,
he (the Attorney-General for Ireland) was charged with
straining the law, because he adopted a line of policy
which he considered to be bad, and that was copying
everything which had emanated from the Hon. and
Learned Member for Worcester.—(Cheers, and laughter.)
It was rather too bad to accuse him of straining
the law, when it was nothing more than
a transcript from a Whig straining of the law.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman attempted to convey
the imputation that the Irish Government had sought to
prosecute the press, and that they made a point of doing
so. They did no such thing. But he held, and would
continue to hold, the opinion that those connected with
the press should not be exempted from punishment,
merely because they were so connected. Dr. Gray and
Mr. Barrett, proprietors of the Freeman's Journal and
Pilot newspapers, had attended a variety of meetings,
and took an active part in them. With respect to the
reading of newspapers on the trial, and their ad-
missibility as evidence, he contended that the
newspaper evidence tendered on the trial was perfectly
legal and proper, and the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Solicitor-General for England, whom he
consulted, was entirely of his opinion. Those news-
papers had been identified as having been circulated by
the Repeal Association—by the printer for that body,
who swore to the printed regulations of the Repeal
Association—a copy of which was produced on the
trial. W ith a view to carrying out the organization in
every city, town and village, the repeal wardens were
directed to circulate the evening Freeman and Pilot
newspapers through every district which had subscribed
201., and it was further the duty of those repeal wardens
to circulate the Nation, a weekly newspaper, in every
district which had subscribed 101. It was the
duty of those repeal wardens to take care that
the papers were circulated in such a manner
that every person in the neighbourhood might have an
opportunity of reading them. Every man thus became
a publisher of repeal opinions, and by the circulation of
the most inflammatory articles, the minds of the Irish
people were poisoned, and rendered hostile to the people
of this country. The system of sedition had been mainly I
worked out by the instrumentality of newspapers. Two

of the editors were in the constant habit of attending
these monster meetings, and was he to be told that the
editors of newspapers were to be exempted from the
consequences of the commission of crime? With
respect to an absent and respected individual,
whom he held, and would always continue to
hold, in the greatest respect, but who had been
treated in a very harsh manner, he must say a few
words—the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's
Bench in Ireland had, in common with the Crown
lawyers and the jury, been maligned in the grossest
manner. The Lord Chief Justice had the concurrence
of his brethren on the bench in the manner in which he
laid down the law to the jury. It should be recollected
that one of his coadjutors was Mr. Justice Perrin, who
had been Attorney-General under the Whig Government.
—(Hear, hear.) But he, too, agreed in the manner in
which the law had been laid down by the Lord Chief
Justice ; and if he differed from that exposition, he
would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty
if he did not state why he so differed. The Hon. and
Learned Member had alluded to the manner in which
the Solicitor-General had sent the documents to the jury.
He said they were disjointed scraps, here and there pasted
on pieces of paper, and that the whole documents had
not been sent. He (Mr. Smith) most emphatically de-
nied this. The newspapers from• which the extracts
were made were sent up, except, indeed, in the case of
the leading articles, which had been printed together,
for the greater convenience of the Crown lawyers. With
respect to the charge of the Lord Chief Justice, he ad-
mitted that it was not the habit of persons tried for
offences to be in love with the Judge's charge.—(A
laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear.") The accused often
thought that material portions of their defence had been
omitted by the Judge, and no person in Court thought
so but themselves. In the course of the trial the tra-
versers had called a mass of evidence for the defence
which; properly speaking, was wholly inadmissible. For
instance, the speeches of Mr. O'Connell in 1800 and
1810, which had nothing whatever to do with the trial,
but were yet not objected to by the Crown.
Mr. SHEIL—You objected to them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I did not.

Mr. SHEIL—You did.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—(in a warm and ex-
cited manner repeated that he had not done so)—He
positively stated that he did not. Charges had been
brought against him personally, which he did not think
he deserved. Ho had abstained from going into the
merits of the case, because it could not be said to have
been yet concluded, as it must receive some future con-
sideration in the Courts in Ireland ; but what he wished
to refer to was of a personal nature. A complaint had
been made against him, and he thought with justice, of an
act committed in the course of the proceedings ; he had
been misled by feelings of irritation, which he ought
not to have yielded to. The Court having adjourned,
he permitted himself, after language of a very irritating
nature, to take a step which he deeply regretted.—(Cheers,
from both sides of the House.) He was sure there was
not a gentleman in that House who would not make
allowance for his feelings under the circumstances.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He did not wish to say
a word about Mr. Fitzgibbon—he was absent, and he be-
lieved the language which had escaped from him, and
which had irritated him (the Attorney-General for Ire-
land) had escaped from him inadvertently. Enter-
taining these views, he should not say a single word to
inculpate him—he thought it would be base and un-
generous to do so. He (the Attorney-General for Ire-
land) considered that he had received a gross insult—
that personal dishonour had been imputed to him—
whether right or wrong he would not then determine.
Those who knew him would say that he had always main-
tained a character for honour and honesty. In a moment of
excitation the occurrence took place, and had it not been
that the Court unfortunately adjourned, it would not
have happened, for he would have had time to cool.—
(A laugh.) He did not urge it as a justification, but he
was willing to go the whole length, and say that he acted
with impropriety. He thought that a generous and
manly allowance would be made for such feelings under
such circumstances. He had explained this matter the
more fully, lest it might be thought he was unwilling
to admit he had been in the wrong. A charge had been
made against him by the Hon. Member for Dungarvon
in Ireland—that he had at one time made a speech
containing language very offensive to Roman Catho-
lics. Now, he (the Attorney-General for Ireland)
went to Mr. Millikin's, the bookseller's, in Dublin,
who had published his speech in a pamphlet form, and
by much the fullest report of it; and in that speech,
though there was strong language regarding the appro-
priation clause, he did not believe anything could be
found offensive to Roman Catholics. If, however, there
was any sentiment which gave pain to individuals of
that persuasion, all he could say was, that he sincerely
regretted it. The Right Hon. Gentleman knew that he
(the Attorney-General for Ireland) had been friendly
to the claims of the Irish Roman Catholics ; at a period
when it was not fashionable to be so, he had been fa-
vourable to Catholic emancipation. He would not
longer detain the House. He felt that he had intruded
a great deal upon their patience —(Hear.) He must
own that he had hitherto felt somewhat awkward, and
that he did not feel so much at home as when addressing
a court of law ; but the kind manner in which he had
been received by both sides of the House would relieve
him in future trom much of that embarrassment in
addressing them, though he would not trespass so grie-
vously on their patience as he felt constrained to do
upon that night.—(Loud and long continued cheering
from the Ministerial benches.)
Mr. DILLON BROWNE moved the adjournment
of the debate, amid loud cries of " Sheil, Sheil."—The
adjournment was agreed to.
A few orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Ten minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedsngs of the House of Commons.)
WEDNESDAY, FED. 21.
HORSE RACING PENALTIES BILL.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

Amendment proposed to the Preamble, to leave out the
words " not intending to offend, nor being aware that they
were offending against the said recited provisions of the said
Acts, or any or either of them :"—Question put, " That the
words proposed to be left out stand part of the Preamble :"
The Comm►ttee divided :

MINORITY—AYES, 27.
Barnard, E. (3. Hindle', Charles Powell, Caleb
Bellew, ft. M. Hume, Joseph Rous, Captain
Bel nal, Captai a Kemble, Henry Tancred, H. W
Brotheiton, Joseph Langston, J. H. Thornely, Thomas
Bustleld, W. Maher, Nicht las Wall, Charles B.
Butler, Colonel Muntz, G. F. Williams, W.
Butler, P. S. O'Connell, Maurice Yorke, Hon. E. T.
Colvile, C. R. Pechell, Captain TELLE es
Easthope, Sir John Peel, Jonathan Duncombe, T. S.
Feilden, J. Phillpotts, J. Watson, W. H