The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-23 00:00:00

~ FEERITARY 23, 1844.

had a painful task to do, but I have, at the same time, to
make some allowance for the acts of the Right Honour-
able Gentlemen. The Dublin Evening Mail—by the by,
a high authority on these matters—had stated that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had been compelled to be in at-
tendance upon an eminent statesman for the
purpose of a consultation, preparatory to making an
increase in the grant devoted to the purpose of national
education in Ireland.—(Loud laughter.) But having
acquitted the Recorder of every sort of moral imputa-
tion, still there are some circumstances which do appear
to me, with respect to the revision lists, which were quite
inexplicable, and which appear to me eminently to call
for the remarks used by Mr. Justice Perrin,
when he said that he thought with respect to
those lists there were grounds to conclude
there was something worse than accident. Now
what is the case here? Is it because Mr. M'Grath
is a Roman Catholic—is it therefore that it is expected
that the defendants (some of whom are Roman Catho-
lics) have employed their influence for the purpose?
Now see what a monstrous charge you prefer against
Mr. M'Grath, without the possibility of sustaining it.
For what is the charge ? That the defendants actually
purloined or lost 15 names of Roman Catholics in one
parish, the parish of St. Audeon's, as if they were
anxious to exclude the Roman Catholics from the
jury !—(Cheers.) A list containing 15 names is lost,
and it is alleged that Mr. M'Grath, a Roman Catholic
gentleman at present in the employment of the Recorder
of Dublin, who has not dismissed him, who won't dis-
miss him—(Cheers)—was guilty of a most nefarious
practice, and that insinuation is made by her Majesty's
Attorney-General !—(Loud cheers.) Now, is this a
fair mode of proceeding?—(Cheers.) When they found
a mistake—l will call it a mistake for the present—but
a mistake most pernicious to the defendant, depriving
him of the benefit of the Act of Parliament introduced
by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Ma-
jesty's Government—when you found that mistake
operating against the defendant—you say he did it him-
self—why, do you think that he committed suicide ?
There stands the statement.—(Lord Stanley here made
some observation across the table which we did not
catch.) Let us have no mistake on this point.—(Hear,
hear.) What I said was this, that, last night, the At-
torney-General charged corruption upon us. He charged
us with corrupting a public officer, a man whose liveli-
hood depended on his office—a man from whom we
should

" Take the life,
" When we do take the means whereby he lives."
The charge was corrupting a public officer, and for what
purpose ? For the purpose of removing Roman Catho-
lics from the jury. Now, is that plausible ?—(Cheers.)
Would such an accusation be received with acclamation
by any gentlemen except those who had been pre►iously
heated by the singularly operative eloquence of the Right
Hon. and Learned Gea tleman.—(Loud cheering.) When
I found a British House of Commons cheering on an
Hon. Gentleman while he was blasting the character of
a private individual, I was astonished at the want of just
feeling on the part of the Attorney-General—l was as-
tonished that such an accusation, so destitute of truth, or

I should say without a shadow of probability, should
be received with acclamation by a British House of
Commons.—(Loud cheers.) When the facts are so
much disputed, when such contradictory assertions are
made, when I say sixty names were lost, when you say
twenty-seven, when the Recorder says twenty-four alto-
gether, of whom sixteen were Catholics, ought we not
to have a Committee to inquire into, and to search the
matter to the bottom? If there is corruption connected
with a great State prosecution—a matter of such
magnitude —.if corruption had been charged in a
case where a verdict has been obtained, which
verdict has been made a matter of triumph—
if with respect to it we are contradicting each other, and
meeting each other at every step—if you say, yes, when
I say, no—is not just you should grant us a committee ?
—(Cheers.) That will not be a vote of censure on the
Government. A committee of inquiry into the state of
Ireland would be a vote of censure, but this committee
will not be a vote of censure. Then give us the com-
mittee. Let us know how all this has happened. I
presume, after a suggestion, which seems to be approved
by all sides, that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert
Peel) who introduced the Act into Ireland, and it is to
his merit, for he is a great legal reformer—l presume
that in vindication of his own Bill, and to rescue it from the
imputation of unfair working, he will not deny us the means
of investigating thbse transactions which do clearly re-
quire investigation. Let us see what took place when
the discovery was made, no matter whether the names
were 24, or 60, or 27—a certain number were left out,
a wrong was done. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Stanley) says, and most justly, that on the ballot the
names are selected by chance. To be sure they may
be, but the chances ought to be equal on both sides—
the Government must not play with loaded thee.—
(Cheers.) It is mentioned in Rabelais, that a distin-
guished judge when puzzled with a case, used to throw
dice for the decision, and according to the dice used to
decide either for the plaintiff or defendant. But in this
case the dice have, always been loaded for the Crown.
We contend in this case we have not had our just pro-
portion of contingencies. Why, it was an old practice
of this House, in choosing Committees, to put names of
Members into a glass, and to draw them by chance.
Now, suppose the names of twenty. seven Tories had
been left out—(Cheers)—suppose that by any larceny,
or loss—and very often one touches on the other—
twenty-seven or sixty names of Tory Members were
left out, and that it turned out a Whig Committee—men
bound by their oaths, and as little likely to act contrary
to their consciences as a Protestant jury, and suppose
the omission were discovered, what would the Tories
say then ?—(Loud cheers.) Would they not say, give
us a new ballot? Put the twenty-seven names back?
Would not that be said? and very fairly said; and is not
this exactly the case here ?—(Loud cheers.) There were
ten Catholics left on the list; suppose by any chance
there had been thirteen, the Crown could only have
struck off twelve, one would have been left; they could
not have got rid of him. Of our fair number
of tickets in this lottery we have been de-
prived, and a wrong has in that particular
been done us, whether it was the result of fortune or the
result of fraud.—(Cheers.) Then, what was the course
we adopted ? We took this course, we made a motion to
quash 'the panel, and here the Attorney-General was
perfectly triumphant. He did not say a word of the
next proceeding, but I will take care that I will do so.
The Court said we cannot quash the panel. We then
made various offers—we said, let the Recorder of Dub-
lin review the list. The Court said there is a difficulty
in that. We said put all the names in the ballot again,
including those left out. The Court said there is a diffi-
culty in that. In short, the Court refused to quash the
panel, and refused to give any kind of remedy. But a
most impartial step was afterwards taken. We chal-
lenged the array, and on that the Attorney-General said
not a word.—(The Attorney-General was understood to
say here, " I did.") I do not remember with any par-
ticular minuteness the circumstances that did take place,
but the House will forgive me, if I; draw their attention
to what I do recollect of them. We challenged the ar-
ray, and the form of that challenge is most material. In
that challenge we stated that " several lists in a certain
paper-writing, purporting to be a 'general list of the
Jury, and purporting to be made out of the several lists
set forth and signed as aforesaid, was illegally and frau-
dulently made out, for the purpose and intent of
prejudicing the defendants." These- were all the facts
put in issue, to use the legal phrase. We not only
mentioned the names, but we also put in issue the frauo.
We put in issue the intention to prejudice the defen- '
dants. We put in issue what you have suggested
has been done by the defendants for their own benefit.
If the Crown had joined issue in these facts, which
might have been tried in half an hour by the Court, for
it was not a question to be tried by a jury, we having
put in issue the most material facts, the loss of the
names which was material, and the allegation of fraud
which was still more so, was it not the duty of the
Crown to have joined issue upon them under these cir•
cumstances? If it had joined issue, and the decision had
been in its favour, there would be an end of our objec-
tions, and if the facts had been found against it, then
of course the panel must have ..been altered, or some
other steps must have been taken. Then how did the
Court decide ? Were the Court unanimous ? The
Court were not. Mr. Justice Perrin, who introduced
the Act into Ireland, which he borrowed from the re-
formed code of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)—
Mr. Justice Perrin, who knew the operation of that
Act, who was familiar with all its details, who had
scrutinised and adopted its 'machinery—Mr. Justice
Perrin decided that the challenge of the array was
good, and said that the demurrer should be over-
ruled .—(Hear.) But the Crown took advan-
tage of the decision of the majority of the Court,
and went to trial, although one of the judges had declared
that the list of the jury had been stained and corrupted
by suspicion. My Learned Friend suggests to me that
a demurrer always admits the facts for the purposes of
the argument. That is the truth ; but I did not dwell
upon it, because it is a legal fiction. I dwell upon what
is more substantial. The Crown had the opportunity of
ascertaining a fact of the utmost materiality.—
(Hear.) The Crown shrank from that investiga-
tion, and went on with the case, with the protest of one
of the judges against it. The verdict which you have
obtained has been obtained through the interven-
tion of a jury condemned by one of the judges
who sat in that Court.—(Hear, hear.) If all the
i3udges were unanimous as to the abstract law stated
y the Chief Justice, the judges were not unani-
mous, they-were not at all unanimous, as to the verdict ;
because one of the judges condemned the panel, the
foundation of the verdict ; and if the panel be shaken,
the entire superstructure, if I may so say, raised upon
it, must of course fall too.—(Cheers.) I come now to
another portion of this case, the striking off of Roman
Catholics from the jury. I see I am occupying the
House too long—(Loud cheers)—but it is a case
of paramount importance. It is a case in
which I was counsel, in which I inevitably took
a very warm interest—l should feel ashamed
if I had not—and with the facts of which I am, to a
certain extent, more familiar than others—and I am not
conscious that in anything which I have stated I have
departed in the slightest degree from the facts.—(Hear,
hear.) Now it is said by Mr. Kemmis that there were
ten Roman Catholics on the list. Eight of them I ad-
mit were most properly struck off.—(Hear, hear.) I
cannot for a moment pretend that eight men who were
members of the Repeal Association, or subscribers to
its funds, ought to have been retained upon the jury.
I could no more contend for it than I could contend
that Mr. Sheriff Falkner should have been retained upon
jury.—(Cries of " Hear," from the Opposition.) But there
were two men who were not members of the Repeal
Association, and who had not subscribed to the Repeal
Fund. Mark the affidavit of Mr. Kemmis ; it is in these
terms :—He says " that he believed, and still beliq°!3t
that two ofthe persons who were Rgm fi COliolie4 WO@
members 9f tilP 4PPg4I A 3 4140440 p, or had subscribed to
its rilltqs,' Now Mr, Hendrick is a Roman Catholic,
and about Mr. Hendrick the Attorney-General did not
say a single word last night ; he did not even mention
hie iiitme.—(Hear, hear.) Now see whit coupe has

been taken about Mr. Hendrick. The Noble Lord the
Secretary for the Colonies, who appears to know a great
deal more about this part of the case than the Irish
At torney-G en eral, told us that Mr. Hendrick
was considered to be a Protestant and Con-
servative. Who told him so ? Did AL*. Keminis ?
No; Mr. Keromis believed him to be a Roman Catholic.
—(Hear, hear.) Well, now, are we really to try a
matter of this signal importance—namely, the exclusion
of Roman Catholics, upon the specific grounds of Mr.
Kemmis's affidavit, or by looking at the letters which
passed upon the subject? Is that the way to satisfy the
public upon a question of such deep and vital interest ?
You see the secret of this case in a moment. You make
an affidavit—men are generally bound by an afWavit
—and you say that the whole ten are either members of
the Repeal Association or have subscribed to its funds.
Mr. Hendrick is not a member of the Association—Mr.
Hendrick never subscribed to the repeal rent—Mr.
Hendrick is a Roman Catholic. It is stated
that he was a Roman Catholic. I requested my Hon,
Friend the Member for the county of Wexford, when
this matter was in agitation, to go to the house of Mr.
Hendrick, with whom he was acquainted, and inquire
whether Mr. Hendrick was a Roman Catholic, or had
subscribed to the Repeal Association? The answer
was, that Mr. Hendrick was a Roman Catholic, but
that he had never subscribed to the Repeal Association
—never subscribed to its funds. You prove to be mis-
taken, and your mistake is of a very important kind.-
-(Hear, hear.) Let me now come to the case of Mr.
Dunn. Now, Mr. Dunn is not a member of
the Association, and never subscribed to the funds of the
Association. It is said that he is a Repealer, and the
Noble Lord observed that I was a quibbler when I drew
a distinction. He said, " There are quibbles which may
sometimes be employed in a court of justice, but they
ought not to be resorted to in Parliament." But is there
no distinction, I ask, between being a member of the
Repeal Association and a subscriber to its funds, and
being an advocate of the repeal of the union ?—(Hear,
hear from the Opposition.) Suppose that Mr. Cobden,
and Mr. Bright, and my Hon Friend behind me,were in-
dicted, together, of course, with the Globe, the Chronicle,
The Sun, and all the newspapers favourable to the re-
peal of the corn-laws, suppose that all these were
indicted for a conspiracy. Why, it would be
very easy to say we will set aside all who are subscribers
to the Anti-Corn-law League, and all who are sub-
scribers to The Sun and the other papers ; but would
you set aside a man because he was an advocate of free
trade, or because he had subscribed his name to a requi-
sition calling a meeting in favour of a repeal of the corn-
laws ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers, from the Opposition.)
Or let me put another case. Suppose the Tories had
come in in the year 1831, and suppose that certain con-
spirators, or certain persons alleged to have conspired,
had been indicted for endeavouring to subvert the Con-
stitution by means of intimidation.—(Great laughter.)
Suppose my Noble Friend on my right, and my Hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department
—(Laughter)—and the Noble Lord opposite, had been
indicted for a conspiracy, we will say to swamp the
House of Lords, would there not, in that case, have been
a distinction drawn between a juror who was personally
an advocate of Parliamentary Reform and the members
of Brookes's Club, where might be heard, perhaps, in-
cendiary and seditious speeches, delivered at a table
amidst rapturous applause ?—(Laughter.) The Noble
Lord said I was a quibbler because I ventured to say
there was a great difference between a Repealer and a
member of the Repeal Association, the one being charge-
able with conspiracy, and the other not. Quibbles are
bad things, but Ministerial sophistications are much
worse.—(Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) I
think the Noble Lord must now see that I was not
quibbling when I drew the distinction in question. At
all events he must see that there is a most marked differ-
ence between the affidavit of Mr. Kemmis and the
statement made by the Noble Lord, who tells us
that there were four Dunns, but that it is not
pretended that Michael Duna was a member
of the Repeal Association.—(Hear.) I think we have
clearly made out that two of these men were unobjec•
tionable, and that you were not justified, therefore, in
striking off their names.—(Cheers.) Now, what ought
to have been done under the circumstances ? The panel
was bad ; the panel was vitiated ; it was so represented
by a judge ; you yourselves admit that a number of
names have been struck off. Every Roman Catholic.,
you say, was to be struck off. Would it not have been
a wise course to consent that a new panel should be ap-
pointed ? If the parties had consented to a new panel
that panel would have been binding. I believe no
lawyer in this House will deny that if the parties had
afterwards made an objection they would have been
stopped. I do not know what may be the opinion of the
Attorney-General, but the opinion of eminent lawyers
in this House supports the view which I have taken.
But suppose there had been no consent, was there not
another expedient ? Would not the rule for a special
jury have been discharged ?—(Hear.) The Sheriff of
Dublin (Mr. Latouche) is a gentleman of the very
highest respectability. When the Irish Municipal Bill
passed you retained the appointment ofsheriff for Dublin,
though you had not taken it from the Corporation of
London. The appointment was vested in the Crown,
because you said that if the Corporation were to appoint
the sheriff, the new sheriffs would be just as bad as
the old ones ; they would as certainly be Repealers, as
their predecessors were Anti-Repealers.—(Laughter.)
Now, I do not say whether you were right or wrong in
taking this course ; but the Crown having taken the
appointment into its own hands, and appointed such
men as Mr. Latouche, I maintain that you would have
acted most wisely, if you had left the appointment to
that officer.— (Hear, hear.) You use the words " com-
mon jury," but the words " common jury" generally
mean a jury selected from a partieular class. The
jury who tried this case were persons compa-
ratively of an inferior class. I do not mean to say
that the middle classes are not a proper depository
of political power. I do not mean to say that it is not
wise that your special juries should be composed of
Protestant tanners, Protestant piano-forte tuners, and
Protestant grocers.—(Great laughter.) I cast no reflec-
tion on any one, but I go back to the question, why did
you not permit the Sheriff to return a common
jury the Sheriff appointed by yourselves ? Mr.
Latouche would have returned men of the highest con-
sideration—Protestants and Catholics. He would not
have returned Repealers, but he would have returned
men of great influence; ho would have returned bank
directors, merchants, and men whose station and con-
duct placed them above suspicion. Yon had the
means of doing that, but you did not do it.
It was a singular boast of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that
he had recourse to a special jury in this case, when, in-
stead of having recourse in the formation of the jury to
men upon whom the high character and moral habits
of Mr. Latouche himself might have been impressed,
he selected the men I mentioned. What reason had
the Right Hon. Baronet for not having a common jury ?
Was it a case in which the Crown might not have availed
itself of its prerogative of challenging the jury? My
Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Worcester
(Sir T. Wilde) said they would not have dared to exercise
their prerogative. The Attorney-General for Ireland
said he would have dared—(Hear, hear)—certainly no
man can deny his intrepidity.—(Hear; and a laugh.)
But my Hon. and Learned Friend says that the Crown
is controlled by public opinion—the Crown, if not in Ire-
land, at least in this country, acting under the coercion
dr British sentiment, would not have ventured upon an
act at once so culpable and so imprudent as to strike off
the names of persons of high respectability because they
were Roman Catholics.—(Cheers.) If you were sincere
in the manifestation of your desire to have Roman Ca-
tholics upon the jury, you had a very obvious mode of
carrying your purpose into effect and realising that
desire when you found your mistake. From the panel
from which the Roman Catholics had been excluded
you might have got a common jury whose verdict would
have been unimpeached, and the whole controversy
which has taken place, and all the agitation connected
with it, might have been fortunately averted.—(Cheers.)
Now under these circumstances, I ask is it wonderful
that in Ireland great excitement should have taken
place? Is it astonishing that the Roman Catholics of
Ireland should have felt indignant upon the subject?—
(Cheers.) Is it wonderful a great public meeting should
have taken place in every district of the country on the
matter? Were these meetings called by factious men?
At the head of one requisition calling in Dublin a meet-
ing was the name of Lord Kenmare, one of the most
unqualified advocates of the union, a man of great pos-
sessions and ancient birth, and closely allied to this
country.—(Hear, hear.) That nobleman felt the insult
you had offered to him, and he signed the requisition,
not for the purpose of gratifying any factious feeling,
but from a sense of the insult that had been offered to
him as a Roman Catholic. There was a circumstance
that gave additional poignancy to the feelings of the
Roman Catholics of Ireland. That circumstance was
this :—The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-
General for Ireland, thought fit to advert
to conduct I pursued fifteen years ago, in a
trial at Clonmel. He will excuse me if I venture to
advert in this House to an expression of political opinion
by which he made himself most conspicuons in Ireland.
An opinion of which I believe the Right Hon. Baronet,
at the head of her Majesty's Government, is not aware
—(Hear, hear.) I do not mention this for the purpose
of malevolence—(lronical cheers from the Ministerial
benches)—l bear no ill-will to the Right Hon. Gentle..
man.—Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) I have no
motive for towards him, he never did me wrong.
That Right Hon. Gentleman imagines that a conspiracy
was entered into at the bar for the purpose of exaspe-
rating him and wounding his feelings that was unfor-
tunately a mistake on his part but I 'do take upon my
honour to assure him, that there was no such intention
ever entertained.—(Hear, hear.) But he is a public man,
and in speaking of public men opposed him, he does
not exhibit, any particular delicaoy, and he must expect
when political antagonists come to scrutinise his con•
duct and examine his motives, they will ask "what
manner of man he is," and what course he has pursued.
He, last night, adverted to a speech I made at a trial.
He said he was sorry for what he bad stated,
and, as he says he is sorry for it, he is to be forgiven,-,-.
(Hear, hear.) It was impossible that Roman Catholics,
when they came to compare his conduct at the trial with
opinions ho had expressed, should not have suspicions
that unfair dealing was intended in their regard. The
' fact I allude to is this—a great public assembly took
place in Dublin in the year 1837, where the principal
Conservatives of that city met together; that great public
assembly moved a resolution, and he took a most active
part in the proceedings, some of which related tO
question of education.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposi.
tion.) That I mention in a parellthoA4 with it I have
nothing to do now, Tllg wwtilig was attended by Mr.
VIVA Y9ll 1141 T Van& a Master in Chanceiy—
kYhlr 4-teiroy'whom you have made ejudge—by Mr.
Jackson whom • you have also made a judge
and by the Right Honourable Gentleman whom
you have made Attorney-General. The resolutionspassed
at that meeting were sir a most violent character. They
declared that the Protestants of Ireland were at that
as'perilons a condition as in the 4rea,C 10,41 i that

is the effect of one of the resolutions I hold in my hand
In the year 1641 a most frightful massacre of the Pro-
testants of Ireland is said to have taken place, and those
gentleman in the Rotunda declared that the Protestants
of Ireland were then in as perilous a condition as at the
above period, and that the slaughter of their coun-
trymen was contemplated by the Roman Catholics
of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) But what does the Right
Hon. Gentleman say ? Ile referred me to a copy of his
speech, printed by .Milliken. He did not tell us that that
copy was corrected by him, or by his authority. But I
have the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman here.
Every one here knows that speech was made by the
Right Hon. Gentleman, and that everybody in Dublin
did not go to Milliken's for it. Then, what does he say?
" I am sorry that circumstances hare induced me to be-
lieve that Roman Catholics have very little regard for
the sanctity of an oath."—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Well now, that was open—that was manly. I prefer
it to insidious imputation—(Cheers)—to hints, conveyed
with an assumption of gentleness and a suavity of voice.
—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J.
Graham) felt indignant at the proceedings adopted by
the Irish Roman Catholics. The feeling of indignation
entertained by them was not confined to them. You
will admit, I believe, that the English 'Zeman Catholics
are not Repealers—that the high Roman Catholic
aristocracy of England, men of exalted position
and ancient birth, and exceedingly mnederate in politics
are not allies of, and co-partners with, Daniel O'Con-
nell. What effect did your proceedings produce upon
them ? The Earl of Shrewsbury, when the Right Hon.
Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury came into office,
wrote a letter to the Catholics of Ireland, in which he
recommended them to support the Administration of the
Right Honourable Baronet. What is the letter which
the Earl of Shrewsbury, the premier Earl of Eng-
land, now writes ? The blood of the Talbots caught
fire at last, when insult was offered to his co-religionists
in Ireland? He says in his letter to Lord Camoys, on
the occasion of the Catholic meeting in London, after
expressing his inability to attend, that he was anxious
for an opportunity of expressing his indignation at the
fresh insult that had been offered to the Catholic popu-
lation of the kingdom by the conduct of the law officers
of the Crown in the preliminary proceedings on the
interesting and important trials pending in Dublin.
That comes from a man himself inclined ori-
ginally to give his support to the Administration
of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and who wrote a letter
in which he said that the Right Hon. Gentleman had
carried Catholic Emancipation, and that confidence
should be placed in him. These facts are startling—
(Hear, hear)—and there is no Roman Catholic with one
spark of spirit but muit resent them. See what an
anomaly this is ! You repeal the Catholic Emancipa-
tion Act, practically, as far as the jury box is con-
cerned. We are admitted to the bench of justice ;
you have sent there the late Baron Wolfe, and Sir Michael
O'Loghlin ; we are admitted to the Imperial Parliament
which I, a Roman Catholic, have at present the honour
of addressing; we are admitted to the Board of Admiralty,
the Treasury, to the Board of Trade, and to the Privy
Council. But admitted as we are to the bench ofjus-
lice —admitted to the Senate—admitted to the Admi-
ralty, the Treasury, and the Board of Trade--admit-
ted as we are to the Privy Council of our
Sovereign, we are excluded from the jury box.
We are excluded from the jury box, which has afforded
a refuge to Protestant ascendancy, and has thus become
invested with the most odious form of that detestable do-
mination—(Cheers)—and yet the Noble Lord the Se-
cretary for Ireland perseveres in his professions, and
tells us that he is exceedingly anxious for the adminis-
tration of justice.—(Cheers.) At the last London
election some person in the crowd asked Mr. Baring
if he was for free trade. Oh, yes, said Mr. Baring,
"I am for free trade in the abstract."—(A. laugh.)
" Will you vote for a repeal of the corn-laws?" asked
the man. " Oh," replied Mr. Baring, " that is quite
another thing."—(Cheers and laughter.) So the Noble
Lord is for an impartial administration of justice in the
abstract, but when he is asked will he admit Catholics
into the jury box, he replies, " Oh, that is quite another
thing."—(Loud cheering.) But it may be possibly from
infirmity of purpose that the Noble Lord takes that
course. Not so with Lord De Grey—(Loud cheers)
against whom pave a most serious charge to make con-
nected with this trial; and I hold in my hand the means
of substantiating that charge. —(Hear, hear.) The
House has doubtless heard of the existence of an Asso-
ciation in Dublin, called the Protestant Operative Asso-
ciation. I allude to this Association—first, as illus-
trating the results of the policy of the present Govern-
ment ; and secondly, as illustrating the consequences of
your sacerdotal institutions.--(Loud cheers.) I hold in
my hand extracts from the debates of that Society, some
of which I will read to the House. Popery is denomi-
nated a God-destroying, Christ-blaspheming, Bible-
denying superstition.—(Cheers and laughter.) Now,
this is from an address to the people of England. They
denominate Popery gross idolatry, the monstrous pro-
geny of Satan, and the whole concludes with a panegyric
upon the Hon. Member for Knaresborough--(Loud
laughter)—whose arrival in Dublin, which was then
expected, is stated as an event which every Irish Pro-
testant must contemplate with sentiments of gratitude.
—(Cheers and laughter.) That Hon. Gentleman the
other night read a speech which he attributed to me.
He made a mistake ; that speech was not made
by me, but by a cousin of mine residing in
Cork, and it was made against me, for he
said that if he did so and so he should be as bad as
silk-gown Sheil.—(Cheers and laughter.) I asked him
where he found the speech ; the lion. Member showed
it me in the " Annual Register." It was a mistake to
attribute to me ; the Hon. Gentleman made the mistake,
but I certainly acquit him of any intention to misrepre-
sent me.—(Cheers.) This Dublin Protestant Operative
Association presented an address to Lord De Grey int.
mediately after the proclamation was issued. On the
13th October, the Dublin Operative Protestant Associa-
tion presented an address to Lord De Grey, in which,
after speaking, of the dispersion of the Clouted meeting.,
they spoke of the sacrifice of the mass as a blasphemous
fable--(Hear, hear)—dangerous to and destructive of
Christianity—that the people of England had insisted
upon the abolition of idolatry in India, and that it was
necessary for the good of Ireland that a law should be
made for the total abolition ery.—(Hear, hear.)
Now that was an address presto Lord De Grey at
a great public crisis—at a time when the public mind
was agitated to its profoundest depths. Now what was
Lord De Grey's answer ?—(Hear, hear.) Did he
denounce the insult thus offered to his fellow-country-
men, and, through them, to himself ?—(Lond cheers.)
When he came to Ireland, he said his Sovereign, when
she had sent him there, had charged him to be careful of
the interests of Ireland, for she was peculiarly solicitous
for the welfare of her Irish people.—(Loud cheers.)
Now what_ was the answer which he, who had received
so solemn a charge, and from whom the benevolent in-
tentions of his Sovereign should have been reflected—
(Loud cheers)—what was the answer which he had re-
turned to that address ? I will read it :—" I have in
command from his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant to
acknowledge the receipt of the address of the Dublin
Operative Protestant Association, and his Excellency
desires me to make known to those members of the As-
sociation who have signed it his warmest acknowled:ge-
ments—(lmmense cheering)—for their expression of
their feelings of kindness and confidence."—(Cheers and
counter cheers.) Now will the first Lord of the Trea-
sury justify the answer?—(lmmense cheering.) I need
not repeat the question. I know that he will not.—
(Loud cheers.) The Secretary of State for the Home
Department will say that it was injudicious ; as the
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who is fast
asleep —(lmmense cheering and laughter, during which
Lord Stanley roused himself and bowed to the Right
Hon. Gentleman)—l beg to hand him the documents to
furnish materials for his next "No Popery" speeth,
(Immense cheering.) Now I have not said one word
about the trials, and I shall say but little about them.
I shall say but ittle of the charge of the Chief Justice,
because I was the counsel " on the other side."—(Cheers.)
One observation, however, I must make. The Noble
Lord opposite remonstrated with us the other night on
our want of decency—?our want of respect to the. Bench
in venturing to attack the charge of a judge. Now those
who heard the speech the other day are not, per-
haps, aware that the Noble Lord who considered- it eb
indecent in us to cast reflections on the Chief Justice,
himself denounced Baron Smith in this House, and
voted for an inquiry into his conduct.—(Loud cheers.)
For inquiry. into a charge of Baron Smith's.—(Re-
newed cheering.)
Lord STANLEY—Not for an inquiry into a charge.
Mr. SHEIL—You voted for a Committee to inquire
into a speech made from the Bench.
Lord STAITLEY—No.

Mr. SHELL—A motion was made in this House for a
Committee to inquire into a charge delivered by Baron
Smith from the bench to a grand jury of the county of
Dublin.—(Cheers.) The Secretary of State for the
Home Department will perhaps be able to tell him, for
he voted against the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) He was
shocked at the. Noble Lord's conduct.—(Cheers and
laughter.) On that occasion the Noble Lord and the
Secretary for the Home Department were divided.—
(Cheers and laughter.) Only one star appeared en that
occasion in Gemini. (Cheers and laughter.)
But let us pass from that to consider the
moral effect of the verdict.—(Hear, hear, and
cheers.) Do fou expect any beneficial effects
from that verdict?—(Loud cheers.) Why, the Home
Secretary was, the other night, compelled to admit that
there were circumstances connected with those trials
that he considered matter of regret.—(Cheers.) Now,
if there were circumstances which he regretted, he
might, I think, have spared the phrase " convicted con-
spiratars."—(Loud cheers.) But even if the verdict
would be untainted—he is an Englishman, and ought
not to strike a man when he is down.—(Loud cheers,
during which Sir James Graham said something across
the table which we could not catch.) Well I well ! per-
haps I ought not to have said so. At all events,
say that the phrase " convicted conspirators " is an
infelicitous expression, and that, in his cooler moments,
the Right Hon. Gentleman would wish he had not used it.
Is the moral effect of the verdict likely to be increased
by the speech of the Noble Lord, the Secretaiy for
the Colonies.—(Cheers.) It was made some days ag9,
but it is worth remembering.—(Cheers and counter
cheers,) It will be remembered in Ireland—(Cheers.
and counter cheers)—and it may be remembered in
Canada.--(Opposition cheers.) Now my Friend, Mr.
Fonblanque, has very justly remarked, that every sash
of the Noble Lord reminded one of a blister made of
very shining_ flies (Cheers.) And if the Right
Honourable Baronet at the head of the Govern-
menthis 11340
could only have (Kited
Ire-
land did not nowandthat
he to his department,
discreetly if be avoided,
he would be acting
prudence, if he had told the NobwleithLord that. Re-
touching on the subject .
morello remembered the state of
sed by such topics—but the Noble.
feelings of the people a that.
province might not deny himself the. opportunity of givine
mianadmh4eosvorot
us 0 swnewhat pharasaical homily upon the Catholic owil.
Canviada,
He read that as if he was reading from italics.--(Alaugh.) Such was his emphasis. reading
read it with th

same emphasis as struck the mind when the type struck
the eye with its largerormeorreeaidmipr; and then he saidessive character.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) Thus
h
we ought to search our consciences, and consider the
solemn obligation that we owed to our country and our
God.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (Stanley) said he
did not mean to give me and others any offence. I
accept his intention as he wishes us to take it, trusting he
will do the same by mine. Suppose, then, as he
has given me a lecture on perjury, give him one
on political principle.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") In answer to his advice to us I will pray him '
to avoid political tergiversation.—(Loud cheers.) I will
warn him- of the danger of playing the renegade for
the sake of men with whom his political career can
command but little confidence—and, above all, I bid
him remember the ancient motto of his high and ho •
noured family—" Soyez tranquille."—(Cheers and great
laughter.) Let him remember, and, if possible, act upon,
that sound and judicious saying in the spirit of here-
ditary gratitude.—(Loud laughter.) As the Noble Lord
gives me his warning as to perjury, in gratitude
I tender him my admonition on apostasy. _(Loud
cheers.) The Noble Lord's advice and counsel is very
gratuitous, and, as is usually the case when he proffers it,
not very judicious or applicable—(Hear, hear.)—but I
will leave that to come to the more important question,
—How is Ireland to be governed ? Is she to be go-
verned by verdicts and bayonets ?—(Cheers.) If you
will require Protestant juries, Protestant churches, and
- Protestant ascendancy, then shall you require Protes-
tant bayonets to maintain them.--(Cheers.) Where are
your specifics for Ireland—l ask you ? You have
issued a Landlord and Tenant Commission, and you
make a great boast about it. What will it do beyond
telling us that which we all know already ?—(Hear,
hear.) You suggest for one of your remedies that the
questions of difference between landlord and tenant
shall be removed from their present cheap and easy ad-
judication to the courts of quarter sessions. Take care
what you do—take care how you interfere with
the tribunal to which the people at pre-
sent appeal with confidence —take care how you
meddle with Mr. Hensch. You may destroy his juris-
diction ; but in doing so you will not destroy discontent,
but will aggravate it by increasing twenty-fold the ex-
penses in your insane intention of appeals to quarter
sessions.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
Graham) told you he should have no objection in any
future legislation on this subject for Ireland, to provide
that where tenants are removed they shall have compen-
sation for any loss they may sustain. Now this is a
question closely connected with registration. It has been.
pending these three years. Do you mean to give us the
Chandos clause?—(Cheers.) If you mean to give us the
tenant-at-will clause, I tell you, you will goad out the
tenants of the country, and you will array them in one
determined opposition to you.—(Hear, hear.) In peace
you will hold them in a debasing and dangerous vassal-
age—(Hear, hear)—and in the time of commotion
Where is the power that shall bind them to you ?
(Loud cheers.) But, after all, the great question is the
question of the two Churches in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
It is the question of the Church with the congregation
and without the revenue—and the Church with all the
revenue and without the congregation.—(Loud cheers.)
What do you intend to do with your Church ? , There
you are silent.—(Loud cheers.) Then I tell you you
you have no right to be silent on such a subject.--(Hear,
hear.) The subject must have been the theme of your
constant consideration. You must have some purpose,
and whatever it is you ought to tell it--you are bound to
tell it.—(Loud cheers.) Will you grant glebes to our
clergy ? I believe they will accept them if offered in a
sincere and conciliatory spirit.—(Hear, hear.) Will you
build Catholic churches ?—(Hear, hear.) Will you
augment—really augment—your grant to Maynooth
to something like a proportion to the great and sacred
object it professes to have in view? You say you
will do every thing that can reasonably be desired to
conciliate and satisfy us, and all the while you are saying
this you keep.back the proof.—(Loud cheers.) But what
course do you intend to pursue with respect to the Es-
tablished Church ? We are told you won't touch it.
Why ? Is it because, as the Right Hon. Recorder for
Dublin says, " your Church contains in its own and sole
bosom the religious truth."--s(Loud laughter and cheers.)
Pray, in which portion of. yeor Protestant Church is
" the religious truth" ertabo.senneti? sls ikin the Church
on the north side of the - Tweed, or thees Church on the
south side of the Tweedss•s(rsemendeta, cheers and
laughter.) On the north- side of, the Tweed the " re-
ligious truth" is Calvinistic—on the south side it
is Armenian ; on the north it is represented by the
Right Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Fox Maule)—on
the south by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) ; on the north you can recognise
" the religious truth" by the plain black surplice—on
the south by the envier •and the mitre-head ; on the
north you claim allianeeavith Geneva—on the south you
show a strong family likeaess to that celebrated Baby-
lonian lady who, under the auspices of Pusey, may yet
restore you to the ancient pathway. of your lathers.—
(Great cheering.) But on which side of the Tweed again I.
ask you ;will you take your, stand ?—(Great cheering.)
I ask my Lord Advocate (Mr. Duncan M'Neil)
on which side is the truth ? No answer. Well,
perhaps, as the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir
James Graham) is a Borderer, he will tell me.—(Shouts
of laughter, and applause.) In vain, then, do I ask
Where I tun to search for the truth.—(Cheers.) At all
events, whatever the truth may be, your Protestant
is not greatly disposed to extend it, but rather
refers to keep it to himself—whilst my Church,
trom its very rise, has extended itself in
every clime and in every region.—(Hear, hear.) You
keep your Church in a short of ecclesiastical conserva-
tory, where, by artificial means, you fondle and foster it
into strength, no—into weakness; when, by more ro-
bust and vigorous treatment, you might give to it a
fulness, freshness, and vitality you little dream of.—
(Loud cheers.) But I will dwell ns longer on the
truth of creeds. I will put the question aside.
Can you make the Church consistent with principle ?
You say you cannot, but I will show you that you can.
What have you done with respect to the clergy- in Ca-
dada ? The clergy of Canada were, by Act of Parlia-
ment, provided with an appropriation—but this appro-
priation was confined to the Protestant religion. Before
the rebellion in Canada, effort after effort was made for
the purpose of procuring a better and more national ap-
plication of the clergy reserves. Until the revolt—that
fatal means by which statesmen are to be taught—until
the revolt, every effort to apply the clergy reseves in a
more judicious manner was made, but in vain. At length
you consented to make an appropriation, and to depart
from the Act of Parliament—the fundamental Act of
Parliament. The Archbishop of Canterbury came down
and said that he deeply felt the necessity of making that
change. The Bishop of London said the same thing,
and the only man that stood firm to his principles was
the. Bishop of Exeter—(Laughter)—who said that he
objected to the change, because he saw that the Irish
Papists would take advantage of it. He was right. The
inference was irresistible. You take away a portion of
the clergy reserves in Canada from the Protestant
clergy, and you give it to the Catholic priesthood ;
and at this- moment—(here Sir James Graham
made some observation across the table which
we could not hear)—you do appropriate an amount
to be applied to the support of the Catholic clergy. I
have got a return from the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley)
upon the subject. I moved for a return, and I defy the
Noble Lord—l beg pardon for using such language to-
wards a person so high in office—l call on the Noble
Lord to show me that no portion of the clergy reserves
is applicable to the payment of the Catholic clergy. The
Noble Lord knows it perfectly well. The clergy reserves
were applied to the payment of debts contracted on the
faith of the Crown. Part of those debts are payments
to the Catholic clergy.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord will
not deny it. Now, then, ho.v inconsistent is your con
duct with respect to the Irish Protestants. You
struck off church-rates in Ireland ; but yen
did not abolish the -prejudices of the people.
You struck off eight bishoprics—if you reduced
bi,hoprics, nity did you not reduce some of the bene-
fices ? If there were ton many bishoprics, of course
there were too many benefices.—(Hear.) In 1838 you
commuted the tithes. The Roman Catholic Members
did not then ask you to confiscate a single farthing.
They asked you to apply the surplus to charitable pur-
Tposes—they asked for nothing else. You refused.
he Bill was carried by the Whigs but proposed by the
Tories. The Gallant Officer, who was then the Se-
cretary for Ireland—and it should be a Gallant Officer
that you ought now to make Secretary for Ireland=
(Cheers)—that Gallant Officer proposed a Bill by which
one quarter of the tithes would have been confiscated.
But no, you put it into the pockets of the landlords ; but
why could you not have applied it to charitable pur-
poses ? You could not have applied the tithes to edu-
cation. No, you took one quarter from the Church, and
put it into the pockets of the landlords. In England,
where you have an Established Church, you teach the
religion of the people. You gave up the Factory Bill,
and you perpetuated ignorance rather than infringe on
the prerogative of the Establishment, whilst in Ireland
you declare that the Church has no such prerogative.
You have stripped the Church of Ireland of thepdrivi-
lege conferred upon the Church in this country
have declared that she is not fit to have the tutorage oyou
the national mind. The state of the
countryrtchy Ireland
is unexampled by any Church in any u
in
Yes, there was one, that was in Poland. The Emupre°ro Pe.
had issued his ukases, in which he
-states that Poland is
for ever to be united to All the Russias. In these he ex-
pressed his hope that the fanciful grievances of the Poles
would be done away. and he expresses his astonishment
that his benevolent feelings are not appreciated ; and he
rays thit the establishment of the Greek Church will be
an excellent bond of connection between the two coun-
tries. The Greek hierarchy was to supply the absence
of the Polish nobility. We have an almost annual
debate with respect to the grievances of the Poles. The
Right lion. Baronet has otter declared his wish to pro-
cure a mitigation of the sufferings of that very: interesting
nation. But I cannot• help thinking that if my Lord
Aberdeen-were to consult Nesselrode on the subject, he
would immediately say " What is your example with
respect to Ireland ?" Since I have spoken of Lord
Aberdeen, I must take the opportunity of expressing my
unbounded admiration of his foreign policy.—(Laughter.)
So long as the. Home Secretary shows a belligerent in-
tention with respect to Ireland, so long does it become
Lord Aberdeen to show a mild behaviour and humility.
Rightly. do you recognise the possession of Algiers—
rightly ao you look quietly on the state :of Spain—
rightly will you sacrifice the treaties of 1831 and
1833, by which the slave-trade was to be suppressed.
You say we Will 'rule upon thee fidelity of international
friendship, and we will obtain peace by the interchange
of mere Royal courtesies. . You say that you will confide
in the permanence of the throne of the barricades,
which has no foundation in • legitimacy on the
one hand or prop of liberty on the other.—(Cheers.)
The time may come when the Right Eon. Baronet may
have reason to attend to the admonition of the. Noble
Lord the Member for Sunderland, when he referred to
the speech made on Catholic emancipation, to which the
Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester has called
attention. These are perilous topies.—(llear, hear.)

My conviction is, that if England were to
stretch forth her gigantic arm, she would crush,
as I trust in God she will crush, every in-'
surrectionary movement in Ireland. If an_ such move-
ment frantic Ireland should be induced otake, what
a fearful cost of treasure, and, what is infinitely
more valuable than treasure--human life would
be required before treason could t e subdued I
Well might the Duke of Wellington— well
might the Hero of a hundred battles, have expressed his
horror of a civil war. Civil war in Ireland would be
be worse than civil war. The demon would have pos-
session of the nation's heart—the sentiments of hu-
manity would be excluded from the hearts
of her children. The country would be de-
luged in blood, and when that deluge had
subsided it would be but a sorry consolation to the
statesman to contemplate that scene of desolation, and
to see the spires of the Establishment still stand-
ing secure amidst the desolation and solitude
that would surround them.—(Loud cheers.) You
adjure me on my oath—l swear by the Gospels
of God. I adjure you, by every precept contained in
these Gospels—in-the name of every obligation, divine
and human—as men and as Christians, to save your
country from the calamities to which I point—to lay
aside the spirit bf partisanship, and not to
permit Ireland to be involved in crime. If you do, the
verdict of posterity will be against you; and you will be
answerable, not only to your country but to that Judge
in whose presence, covered with the blood of civil war-
fare, it will be more than dreadful to appear. But, Sir,
lam not without hope for my country. I trust that
Ireland will cease to be what she now is, the arena of fac-
tion—that animosities will be laid aside, and that we
may at length, in common, offer up a fervent prayer to
the King of Kings for its speedy regeneration.—(Loud
cheers.) I have 'witnessed, within the last few days,
since my return tb.this country, enough to convince me
that the great mass of the community are influenced by
kindly feelings towards Ireland.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear," from both sides of the House.) I have heard the most
admirable sentiments expressed by gentlemen connected
with the present Government by official ties, and by
those of friendship. I have also seen that Englishmen—
noble, high-minded Englishmen—can with generous
promptitude forgive the man who might be supposed to
have done them wrong, and, even upon the mere con-
jecture that he might have been injured, rush to give

him succour.—(Load cries of "Hear.") That this feeling
may be appreciated by my countrymenismymost sincere

wish—that it may be the means of gradually producing
a national reconciliation, and not only a union between
the two countries by such slender ligaments as an Act
of Parliament may supply—but that the two countries
may be socially, politically, morally, and affectionately
united, is the prayer of one who is conscious
of many imperfections, but who never was, and
never will be, indifferent to the interests of his
country, to which he is devotedly attached, and who,
so far from desiring the dismemberment of the empire,
offers up a prayer as fervent as ever passed from the lips
of any of you—that the 'greatness and power of this
mighty empire may be imperishable, and that the
glory, the independence, and the liberty of
Englishmen may endure for ever! (The Right Hon.
Gentleman sat down amid loud and vehement cheering,
Which lasted for several minutes.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the adjourn-
ment of the debate, which was agreed to.
The House then adjourned at a Quarter to One