The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-16 00:00:00

if it could get over the allegations of which investigation
was challenged? Let them have ingu;rS.,t There was
enough to excite more than suspicion;,arpt he thought
he might venture to say that in the„preseat state
of public feeling, and in the pi-e.r...pt state of
Ireland, it ..vould not have a good eff.ct if
they appeared inclined to tr, at these
_in,ati.ers
When they could state that some wbo -special
jurors before vtere left out, when their e.xcuse for the
missing list turned out to be an untenAW4c, he asked
them how could they refuse to grant this viry ? But
there was anoth(r party to this casc—Ml(Aber individual
whose character was at stake on this occasion, that was
the Recorder of Dublin. Had he no "friends in this
House? Or were hoz. Majesty's Govern ME; tso indiff rent
to the character of that gentleman that they would not
allow him, and all tho,e persons connected with his
1 office, to clear themselves if any false or unfounded
charges were made against them? The;Hight Hon.
Gentleman had vouched for the statement of M•Grath.

..... _ ... .
lie hid shown that that excuse had broken down in its
strongest point, and therefore be thought that in justice
to th Recorder of Dub!in they ought to grant this
inquiry. He dii not wish to go into other questions
connected with this matter which had been debated on

previous occasions, but they were matters of grave im-
portance in themselves; and if they allowed this subject
to pass by without inquiry, on the grOund of the ap-
proaching termination of the sessica, or any other
ground, the public mind would be unsatisfied, the doubts
of the public would be as strmg as-, ever, and they
would have not one but many discussions on the state of
Ireland, quite as troublesome as those whip had taken
plan in the. early part of this year. Its Right Hon.
-Friend had delayed bringing this sultject-lorward, be-
cause it was before another tribunal, and, it would be
unfair to distract the public mind, or pre argue the
question which was pending before the highest tribunal
of the land. His Right Hon. Friend had postponed
it also for the convenience of the Govermnent ; and it
was not fair to twit him with bringing it forward at this
late period of the session. 'The question as to the le-
gality of the verdict was now before the highest tribunal.
Suppose that the legality of that verdict should be con-
firmed, would that satisfy the public mind, if all inquiry
was refused as to the errors and inaccuracies with which

it appeared to be connected? He did not know any way
in which they could more exasperate - the . public mind,
and more embitter conflicting parties, and, what was
worse, conflicting sects. Even with legality on their
side, the public impression would be that: justice, fair-
ness, honesty, had not been observed, and that tyranny
only had worked its wantonness in the form of law.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped that the tone
and feeling exhibited by the Right Hon. Gentleman would
exist to the end of the debate ; but the peculiar psition
in which he was placed had caused him to. do injustice
to his Noble Friend who answered the motion of the

Right Hon. Gentleman. Every argument which had been
brought forward on the present occasion had been over
and over again addressed to the House, and he thought
they were now entitled to expect that something new
would be brought forward. He did not mean to say
that the Right Hon. Gentleman who broUght forward
this motion had intended anything, that was mis-
chievous, but certainly the present discussg.pn was calcu-
lated to cast distrust on the administration of justice.—
(Opposition cheers.) Under what circumstances was

the motion made? A most extensive and dangerous
conspiracy existed, fraught with the most serious conse-
quences, threatening the dismemberment of the empire.
That conspiracy was—not by resorting to any extra-
ordinary power not by coming to Parliament
for a Coercion Bill—with no . other weapon than
that with which the law had armed the Government
—beaten down to the ground. The lew had vindi-
cated her supremacy—the offenders against her were
prostrate at her feet, and under circumstances like these
the Right lion. Gentleman thought it was the pro-
per time to insinuate suspicions against those proceed-
ings,_ and to endeavour to lead the public mind to the
conclusion, that in some way or other the parties con-
victed had not been fairly tried. Tile Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had introduced topics into this debate which were
not properly connected with it. Blame had been cast
upon his Right Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-
General for Ireland; but any person who was acquainted
with the facts would be convinced, not only of
the great ability and dexterity with which he
extricated himself from the technical difficulties
with which his cause was surrounded by the ingenious
counsel opposed to him, but by the moderation and firm-
ness of his conduct from beginning to end. That was
an acknowledgment that was extorted from one of the
most eloquent of his adversaries. It bad been said that
a copy of the indictment had been refused to the defen-
dants. Now, the fact was, that eight copies of the in-
dictment had been made out and delivered to the defen-
dants; but it was true that a copy with the names of
the witnesses was refused by his Right Honourable and
Learned Friend (the Attorney-General fur Ireland). He
thought that his Right Hon. and Learned Friend was
right and justified in doing so, and that he would be
guilty of a dereliction of his duty, if, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, he acceded to the application
which was made fur it. After the manner in which
Mr. Bond Hughes, upon whose testimony the informa-
tions were granted, was placarded as a high Govern-
ment spy, was it not perfectly evident that there would
be very great . danger indeed to permit the wit-
nesses' names to be known? He would now proceed
to the real, in fact the only, question before the House,
that which regarded the defective list of jurors. When
this question came before the Court. Mr. Justice
Crampton strongly expressed his belief that there was
no fraud, but that there was some inadvertence regarding
the manner in which the jury lists had been made up.
If there were any fraud, there should have been an
application e to the Court. Such an application
was made, a t was deliberately decided by the Court
it
that the defe dents had no right whatever, under the
circumstances,• to call upon the Court to quash the
verdict. An observation had been made by his Noble
Friend which deserved the serious attention of the House.
There was a mode in which the defendants might have
obviateltheinconvenienceiiMeh arose from a defective
panel. ey might have tirpliM for a trial in the
county of Dublin at large, and the only inference to be
drawn from their not doing so was, that they were not
willing to abandon the possession of a grievance which
might be useful to them at a future time. The trial,
however, approached, and it was then determined that
there should be a new attehipt made to impeach the jury
list by what was called a 'challenge to the array. He
thought a very great mistake had tirisen on the subject
of that challenge, and he' felt it his duty to set the
House right on that point. He had lately seen leading
articles, in which it was distinctly stated that the Lord
Chancellor, in the discussion in the House of Lords, had
distinctly admitted that the lists were fraudulent. He
must endeavour to disabuse the public mind of such an
impression. Admitted it undoubtedly was, in a certain
sense, because no person could demur in point of law
without admitting the facts upon.which: the law arose ;
but admitted to all intents and purposes it was not by
the demurrer.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The fact
was admitted merely for the purpose' of raising the
question of law.—(Hear, hear.) All that the Lord
Chancellor had said in effect was " You must admit the
existence of a fraudulent list, and argue the point of law
which .is raised under these circuinstances."—(Hear.
hear.) Now a majority of the judges had.decided against
the challenge. The Right Hon. Gentleman said " The
verdict pronounced was not satisfactory, in consequence
of the nature of the summing up of the Lord Chief
Justice." He must say he thought this was a very un-
fair and unjust attempt to cast reflections upon the emi-
nent judge who presided at that trial. Considering the
situation in which he was placed, by the opportunity
which there was, if there had been any impropriety in
his mode,of charging the jury—considering that he was
not only addressing the jury in the presence of the en-
tire bar, but that, being himself only one of the four
judges present, and that the others were bound to
address the jury if they considered that any of the evi-
dence had been omitted or improperly stated—he must
repeat that he thought. this was a most unfair and unjust
attempt.—(Hear, hear.) lie had read the summing up
of the Lord Chief Justice more than once, and excepting
one solitary expression, which was hardly worth obser-
vation, he could see nothing objectionable.—(Hear.
hear.) Over and over again the Lot d Chief Justice said
that the onus of proving the conspiracy was upon the
Crown, and that was only to he made out by facts, and
undoubted inferences from facts.—(Hear, hear.) He
even asked the counsel for the traversers to interrupt
him, if he omitted or stated wrongly any portion of the
evidence, and the counsel of the traversers avieled them-
selves of that privilege.—(Hear, hear.) It was most
improper to attribute to the Chief Justice any unfairness
with regard to the mode of summing up the evidence.
It was calculated to make the public beliere that this
State trial had not been brought to a satisfactory con-
clusion. The question which the House had to decide was
simply this—were there any circumstances whatever which
could induce them to say that any good could possibly arise
from an inquiry conducted by a Select Committee in
the manner proposed by the Hon. Gentleman?—(Hear,
hear.) What benefit was to result from it he was at a
loss to understand. If there had been any fraud with
regard to the missing list, there was a particular course
of legal proceedings by which redress might be obtained.
After investigating all the circumstances of the case, he
felt convinced that no hardship or inconvenience had
arisen to parties from the fact of there having been a
missing list. He felt convinced that the trial had been
fairly conducted, and that the conclusion would be con-
sidered by all well judging men, and all lovers of their
country as perfectly satisfactory. On the ground that the
granting of the inquiry would be an admission of fraud,
he felt bound to resist the motion before the House.
Mr. V. STUART said one or two obiervations made
by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had taken him
rather by surprise. It was a pity, for the sake of the
Learned Judge to whom he had referred, that the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman was not in the
House when the debate took place in reference to his
charge, in an early period of the session.; for, if he re-
membered rightly, not one of the Right Mon. Gentlemen
opposite defended him on that occasion.—(Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.) It was no light: thing to bring
such charges against a judge.—(Hear, hear, from the
Ministerial benches.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man had commenced by saying that a wide-spread con-
spiracy was over the land, and that this was, therefore,
no time for such a motion as that before the House.
Why, was not that begging the very question at issue ?
How did they know of the existence of a conspiracy ex-
cept by the decision of the jury ?—(Hear, hear.) They
had on that occasion been dealing too much with techni-
calities. What they should aim at was to remove the
feeling which existed so generally in Ireland, that,
whether from fraud or not, justice was not duly adminis-
tered.—(Hear, hear.) He contended that that was a
question which the House ought to entertain, and the
lateness of the period was no argument against inquiry.
What had been the evil all along but the want of
confidence in the administration of the. law ?—(Hear.)
How could they have any confidence in the administra-
tion of justice, when they recollected that the law had
so long been made the instrument of oppression, and that
jurors had been employed to subvert Justice, and not to