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

E S.UN, LONDON, I'lll3l

law. What could they say, if a person charged with
any offence were to plead ignorance of the law ? Such
a plea had never been allowed; on the contrary, the plea
of ignorance of the law was always considered of no de-
fence.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON agreed with his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member for Bath, and hoped that
he would adhere to his determination to have those
foolish expressions, which stated ignorance of the law
was an excuse for breaking it, struck out of the preamble.
After a few words from Mr. S. WoRTLEY,

Mr. ROEBUCK said he would put a case in point.
A poor man comes to London; he is hungry, and begs
a crust of bread, for whicb he is 4rought betore the ma-
gistrate. He asks is he not allowed to beg for a crust
of bread when he is starving in a Christiai*country, and.
the answer is," No, 'tis against the law ;" and, although
he protests he knew nothing of the existence of such
a law, he is sent off to prison. Surely this was very
like one law for the poor and another for the rich.
Sir R. PEEL said, although he did not wish to see
Parliament interfere much in matters of retrospective
legislation, still he thought this was one, in which Par-
liament ought to interfere to prevent gross injustice
being done to many individuals who were subject to
the most enormous and ruinous penalties, and he should
consequently record his vote in favour of the Bill. In
doing so, however, he felt called upon to say that he
thought that part of the preamble which stated that-ig-
norance of the law was an excuse for breaking it should
be omitted.
After a few words from the Attorney-General, Mr.
Watson, and Mr. Roebuck,
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE objected to the striking out
those words, and he thought the Bill would never have
arrived at its present stage, if the preamble did not con-
tain those words. He heard an Hon. and Gallant
Colonel opposite (Colonel Peel) say that was ignorance
of the law, and was loudly cheered. It might be conve-
nient for lion. Gentlemen opposite to establish such a
doctrine, as it would give a plausible answer to those
who might come forward to vindicate the cause of the-
people, by saying that they did not intend violating the
law. There had been such things as monster meetings.
—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He had frequently ap-
plied to this House for the commutation of the
punishment of individuals whom he thought had
erred through ignorance ; and he had been as frequently
answered by the Government, that ignorance of the
law was no excuse for breaking it. He should persist
on having these words retained in the preamble, and
would divide the House upon the question.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when the
numbers were •

For striking out the words Bl
Against it
Majority —s4

On the motion that the word in the preamble "actions"
brought by common informers, or by other actual losers,
be omitted,
Mr. HAIVES opposed the omission.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY insisted on retaining the words
in the preamble.
Mr. HAWES said that the statute entitled common
informers to bring those actions. That was recognised
by law, and therefore it should not be, as it were, slighted
in the preamble. He thought it would be better to
state, as a reason for introducing the present Bill, that
penalties had been sought for disproportioned to the
offence.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not see anything
unreasonable in retaining the words regarding common
informers. Perhaps it would have been better to say
" whereas certain actions had been brought, and whereas
no action of the same kind bad been brought for 120
years, it was expedient," &c.
Mr. WATSON saw no reason why the causes fur in-
troducing the present Bill should not be fully recited in
the preamble.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY was in favour of the preamble

as it stood.
Sir R. PEEL suggested the propriety of the Hon.
Gentleman who introduced the Bill, omitting the words
objected to.
After a few words from other Hon. Members,
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY consented to withdraw the ob-
jectionable words.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said it was very extraordinary to
witness the persevering manner in which the Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Wortley) had insisted upon retaining the
words, and had instantly abandoned them at the sug-
gestion of the Right Hon. Baronet. One word bad been
suggested—then another and another—and there was no
knowing where those alterations would stop. It had
been said that actions had been brought by no other
than common informers ; such was not the case—actions
had been brought by actual losers. They should have
been at this moment listening to the eloquence, and
edified by the instructions of the Attorney-General for
Ireland, if it were not for those trivial alterations.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought the House had been
wasting its time in protecting gentlemen who broke the
law. All the arguments that had been used in favour of
the Bill were in defence of gambling, and seemed to have
been brought in rather for encouraging than abating that
vice. If there had been only 10,000/. at stake the House
would have heard nothing of the Bill; but as the bets
amounted to half a million, and as the betters belonged
to the aristocracy, the Bill had been introduced.
After a few words from Mr. Horsman, Mr. S. Wort-
ley, and Mr. Milner Gibson,
Mr. HUME said the only reason for bringing in the
Bill was to shield certain noblemen and gentlemen who
had trangrelsed against the law. It was said those hon.
gentlemen and noble lords were in ignorance of the law.
Be thought that was a very insufficient excuse. Those
individuals had ample means of ascertaining what the
law was, and ignorance should not be admitted as a
plea. It was not admitted in the case of the Dorchester
labourers, and why should the poor man be presumed
to know the law better than the rich man?
After a few words from several Hon. Members the
preamble was amended in the form suggested by the
Attorney-General for England.
The Bill, having gone through Committee, was then
ordered to be reported.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.—IRELAND.

The Order of the Day having been read,
Mr. SMITH (the Irish Attorney-General) rose to
resume the adjourned debate on Ireland. He- said that
the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester (Sir T.
Wilde), having thought it right to bring forward, at j
the close of the debate last evening, charges against him
with respect to the mode in which the recent
prosecutions had been conducted, and having
gone the length of imputing, not, perhaps,
in express terms, but by insinuation, mat-
ters reflecting personally upon him, he trusted
the House would bear with him while he laid before it
the defence which he had to offer.—(Cheers.) The
course he proposed to adopt was this. He had not
had the goo:1 fortone to hear the whole of the debate,
but only portions of it ; and he therefore thought his
bestreourse would be to go, step by step, over the whole
proceedings from the first, and state the reasons
which had induced him to come to his
Own conclusions upon every branch of the
case. It would be necessary. first of all to advert to the
eriod when the informations were sworn. Not having
brought those informations with him he could not then_
state the precise day, but he believed it was on the 15th
or 16th of Oct'iber. The first circumstances which oc-
curred after the informations had been sworn to was a
course of a most extraordinary nature adopted by one
of the defendants—a course, he thought it the more ne-
cessary to advert to because it, to a certain extent,
regulated the proceedings he adopted with respect to
;iie applications made by him to the Court of queen's
Peach. A few days after the informations had been,
swop, there was not a witness who, it was supposed had
been fixamined, or would be examined, but was placarded
in every street in Dublin as a spy, an Informer, and a
convicted perjurer.—(Loud Ministerial cheers.) Ile
wished the House to know—he especially wished those
in it who, were al ways declaiming about liberty, justice, and
impartiality—that on the 20th.of October;in every street
in Dublin, large bills were posted with these odious
words in large letters at the head- of them; and the •
names of the witnesses in. equally intelligible characters.
!---(Great cheers from the Ministerial side.) One wit-
ness was more particularly pointed at than any other.
He alluded to a gentleman known to many Members
11f. that House, and who had been frequently em-
ployed by the . Commons' Committees in the
taking of ev idenee—a gentleman who gave his
testimony in so straightforward, manly, and candid a
manner, that Mr. O'Connell, in addressing the jury on
the occasion of the trial, had warmly and justly compli-
mented him. He alluded to Mr. Ilughes.—(Lond
cheers.) And this was their spy, their informer, and
their convicted ja.rjurerl— (Ministerial cheers.) This
was the ntau who, for the purpose of defeating justice,
it was complained of in every newspaper in Dublin,
had been directed to swear T whatever was requisite
fi►r the purposes of the Government.--(There -was het e
an observation made by some Hon, Member—at first
supposed to be by Mr. Shell.) He begged the Don.
Member's pardon, but his interruptions should not. an-
noy him.—(Luud cheers.)
Mr. SIIEIL-1 did not interrupt. I did not speak.
Sir H. WINSTON BAMZON—The observation fell
fr. MI 11W. _ _ _

Mr. sNirrit (in continuation and addressing Mr.
Shell). lie should. before sitting have some matters to
touch uyon in reference to hini.—(Ministerial cheer=.)
This being the course adopted at the very outset of the
proceedings, before even the bills of indictment were
,put up, it was clearto him (Mr. Smith) that he was
run to have a tair trial with the parties implicated. It
Cieltr to him that every impediment was to be
throA ri in the path of justice, every annoyance to himself,
the itn,ses, and all concerned.—(Loud cheers.) On
the 20th of October, informations fur perjury were
tendered against Mr. Hughes, before the di►i-
sional magistrates—this extraordinary cOurse
taken in order to turn the accuser into the
accused—to enable those charged with noun, to
forward and make charges against others.—(Cheers.)
The divisional magistrates refused to take those Jo-
formations.—(Hear, hear.) Four days after the Com-
mission Court was opened before two of the Jullge:,.
But the parties who had thus preferred a charge :of
perjury against Mr. Hughes never went before this
Commission Court during its sittings—(Hear, hear)—
but allowed them to pass by. On the 3. dof 3,4oveihtier.
being the second day of . term, toe Lill
dictment was laid before the grand jury, ant, oo
the 6th of November, the indictment still being there,
the course that was adopted was tf.is :—An applicatioh
was made to the judges for a mandamus against the
divisional magistrates, to compel them to, receive the 111-.
formations against Mr. Hughes. What was the object of
this appeal ? To get at the information which it was
intended, on sir. Hughes' evidence, to place before
counsel.—(Cheers.) The judges put the question to
to them, when they applied for their mandamus, " whydid
you not go to the Commisssion Court?" They told them
also to send up bills of indictment against Mr. Hughes be-
fore the grand jury then sitting. From that hour to ;
this, no bill of indictment had ever been heard of
•
(Loud Ministerial cheers.) Such was the conduct of the
individuals who declaimed so loudly about an

t administration of justice, and who -adopted atioarse
which he should not condescend to designate at' it. de-
served to be designated.—(Cheers.) The next Step in
the proceedings was when the bills were found,' -gn or
about Bth November. The bills of indictment 'having
been brought down, the defendants required Copies of
them ; and, under the 60th of George the Third, they
were entitled to them free of expense. Fortunately for
him (Mr. Smith), the first step of the defendants in the
proceedings had put him upon his guard, and he antici-
pated.that every attempt at delay would be made ; and
as h 4 proceeded he. would prove to the House how de-
terminedly This intention had been carried out.—
(Cheers) The 'defendants applied for eight co-
pies ; to their surprise, if not to their annoy-
ance, the eight copies were ready prepared for
them.—(Cheers.)- t But they were intitled to certified
copies, and the slightest clerical error might have been
productive Of the greatest evil. The consequences had
been foreseen, and the,greatest portion of .the enactment
—nearly all of
,it—had been printed, and, fortunately,
the eight copies turned out perfia tly correct. The next
step of the defendants was to give nine notices of mo-
tion, the object:being to avoid being forced during the
term to plead the general issue, and thus again to
cause some more delay.— (Hear, hear.) Next
came the application to the Court on the ground of the
witnesses names not being indorsed on the back of the
indictment, and the application of three of the parties
simply for a copy of the names of the witnesses—the
course being thus varied by the traversers in order the
better to ensure delay.—(Hear, hear.) He considered
lit necessary, knowing as he did well, the motive for
these, proceedings, to oppose vigorously all these
motions thus brought before the Court, and he
did so successfully, the whole Court being
unanimously in his favour. Another application was
made on the same day to set aside the rule to plead, be-
cause the caption of the indictment was not annexed to
it—but again was he successful in his opposition. All
he contended for was to abide in these, as in other pro-
ceedings, by what, as he thought, had been the uni-
form practice of the Court. Here and here alone the
Court was not unanimous in his favour. Mr. Justice
Perrin took a different view of the law and the
practice to what he (Mr. Smith) did, but the
three others coincided with him.—(Loud cheers.)
The next step taken to create delay, was to tender
nine pleas in abatement to the indictment. This was on
Tuesday the 14th of November. Then they tried to
quash the indictment because the witnesses whose evi-
dence was to support it had not been sworn in Court.
These two matters he resisted, and successfully. The
defendants had taken five days to prepare their pleas, to
which he put in a demurrer, and on the 20th of Novem-
ber, he (Mr; Smith) applied to have the demurrer fixed
for argument on the following morning. When he ap-
plied for this, he was encountered by the argument that
the defendants were entitled to another four day's rule.
Well, the case was argued on the 21st of November, and
it was decided unanimously by the Court that the pleas
in abatement were invalid, and that the demurrers taken
' on the part of the Crown must be allowed.—(Loud
cheers.) So that, at length, after ever effort for delay.
after every plan had been resorted to, he had extorted
from the defendants a plea that they were not guilty.
Now, he wished the House to recollect that he was a
public officer ; that in all that he did herein he
was but performing punctually and faithfully the func-
tions attached to his public situation ; and he protested
that in thus resisting the successive and never-ending
motions for delay, he was actuated by no personal feel-
ings whatever, but solely by a sense of public duty.—
(Loud cheers.) Notice of the time for trial being given
by the Crown, the defendants opposed it on two grounds ;
first, that, from the magnitude of the cause, they had
not time to prepare for trial ; secondly, that the special
jury-list, for the year 1843, contained (oily 388 names—
that of these names between fifty and sixty only were
Roman Catholics ; and that of these fifty or sixty there
were only about twenty-five that could be made avail-
able, and that they could not have a fair and impartial
trial if it were to take place, as originally intended, on
the I Ith of December. He had enforced a plea
of " Not guilty ;" and he could have rejected
the request for a trial by another jury list,
had he thought proper.—(Hear, hear.) He had been
charged, by the Hon. and Learned Member for Worces-
ter, with desiring to procure a conviction per fas act
nefas. Now, he believed the ground on which the re-
quest that the trial might he postponed until the jury
panel of 1844 was prepared—he said he looked upon it
as a reasonable one, and he acceded to it.—(koud
cheers.) What became, then, of the heavy and
harsh imputations which the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman had cast upon him.—(Loud Ministerial
cheers.) The trial having then, with his consent, been
postponed to the 15th of January, what did the traversers
do? They sought to have itagain deferred until the Ist
of February, but to that he would not consent.—(Hear,
hear.) On the 29th of December, the lists having been
copied into the jurors' book by the Clerk of the Peace,
they were handed to the Sheriff. His duty then was,
within ten days, to make out a special jurors'
list. On the 3d of January the Sheriff waited
on the proper officer with the jury list for
1844. One of the charges brought against the Crown,
was that Mr. Mahoney, or one of his assistants,
had stated that he had applied to the Crown
Solicitor, that the clerk of the peace should give copies
of the jury list both to the traversers and the Crown,
and that Mr. Kemmis would not consent. The reason
for it was this. He was in total ignorance of the jury
list,' till nine o'clock of the night of the 3d January ;
but he considered they' were not complete until they
were in the sheriff's hands. Had they consented to this
they would have consented to give a copy. of a jury
list which, in fact, had no existence in point of law.
On the 22d of November, it was agreed upon that the
case should be tried by the jury-list as revised by the
Recorder. What was the nature of that revision ?
Two copies had been served by the attorneys for
the traversers on , all those citizens who were qua-
lified to serve as jurors, and who were Re-
peelers, to attend before the Recorder. At the same
time a notice was served by the same party on every
respectable Conservative who was considered as likely
to be hostile to the traversers, telling them that if they
did not appear in court to support their claim, although
that claim was perfectly valid, application would be
made to have their names struck off. This was the act
of one of those who declaimed so much about liberty,
and about the purity of the administratiOn of justice.
Their object was to pick and cram the jury box with
men entertaining repeal opinions.—(Hear, hear, from the
Ministerial benches.) He (the Attorney-General for
Ireland) consented to the revision of the jury, in order
that the traversers might have no excuse for saying
they had not been fairly and impartially dealt with ; and
not as had been stated by Hon. Gentlemen opposite,
per fas aut nefas, to obtain a conviction. What was the
consequence of the new revision. In 1833, only 188 Ca-
tholics were qualified to appear on the jury lists. In
1844 twenty-five Roman Catholics were so qualified.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the same quarter.) No
doubt could be entertained but the traversers had bene-
fitted by the revision of these lists, and in the manner of
their revision, and the circumstances attaching to it, as
far as the officers of the Crown were concerned, he felt
confident that a British public would refurn a verdict of
acquittal notwithstanding the numerous charges that had
been made against them. The copy of the special jury
panegwas supplied to the attorneys for the traversers the
moment it was ready. Mr. Kemmis had made an
affidavit, that up to nine o'clock on the night of
the 91h of January the Crown had not seen a
copy of the special jury lists. The attorneys for
the traversers, Messrs. Cantwell and Ford,
.pro-
ceeded to draw 48 names from the list so framed.
These :names were drawn, and then an adjournment
.of twenty-four hours took place to allow each party
time to decide what names they should strike off from
the list. A great deal of misapprehension had been
created with respect to challenging the jury. In point
of law, and in point of fact, he denied that striking off
the names by both parties was in the nature of a chal-
lenge atall.—(Cheers.) The Legislature never contem-
plated- such it thing when it passed the Act of Parlia-
ment. .Forty-eight names were drawn from the list of
717. 'Out of these, each party had to strike off twelve.
It was not the intention 'of the Legislature, when it
passed the Special Jury Aet, that the parties who struck
off the names from the special jury list should be
called upon to state their reasons for so doing.—
( Loud cheering from the Ministerial benches.)
.lle confidently asserted, in the presence of the members
of the English bar,.that .it never was the intention of the
Legislature that persons, in striking off the names from
the special jury- list, should be called upon to state the
reason which influenced their in so doing.—(Cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) It was a privilege given
to each side.—(Hear, hear.) The traversers in the
late prosecutions had the privilege of striking off
twelve . names, - and they availed themselves of
it.—(Hear, hear.) Why; then, should they claim to
know the reasons Which influenced the persons for the
prosecution in striking off the other twelve names ? On
the 12th of January a notice of motion was served by
Mr. Cantwell to quash the special jury panel, on ac-
count of the omission of certain names. The lion. and
Learned Member for Worcester said that, if the At-
torney-General for England had been called upon to
consent to tittash that jury panel, he would have had a
,sufficient regard for his honourand his character to have
assented to • the application. (Cheers, and counter-
cheers.) Now, lie (Mr. Smith) thought that lie had
some reason to complain of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
, tleman.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
did not condescend to, tell the. House what was to be
done after the panel had been quashed.—(Loud cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) Now he (Mr. Smith)
would explain to the Muse and the country what would
have been the. 'consequence of that proceeding. lie
would state-this confidently, for although the- Iron. and
Learned Gentleman seemed to think that all honour and
integrity was confined to the English law-officers of the
CrOIVII, yet lie would tell' that Ilon:-and Learned GCn..
den= that there was as much honour and 'honesty in
Ireland.—(Cheers.) lie would now explaisi to the
House what the Hon. :and Learned Member fon Wor-
cester found it inconvenient to explain. The., special
jury panel could not have been, quashed except upon the i
peaersuntlueelti.lpitl3enr.ituhsat the special jury list for the year 1844 was i
rtrlircemlieomn.bettrild,thLateatrinieerd
to be tried in Ireland besides thatw e Memberroef other thhfeor e
Queen‘eVa(s ers-
O'connell.—(clheers froth the Ministerial benches.)
office
el dw
int Ih) t
wmheoemt • Theeviews
Or::
thk
wwhe
aat
haespwiraasntssaytina-g
and Learned Member for Worcester • might gossip in
Westminster Hall ; but this he would state, and he be-
lieved that it would be assented to by every person at
• all acquainted with the law, that he could not legally- or
constitutionally have assented to the addition of one
name to the jury list without affecting every other case
to be tried in Ireland in the year 1844. /clad he con-
sented to have quashed the jury panel, then he must have I
either taken the patiel., of 'last year, or postponed the
trials for twelve months.—(Cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) Suppose lie had adopted the former course,
and had taken the list of the preceding year, what
would then have been said by Hon. Gentlemen opposite,

seeing that in that year the proportion of Roman Catho- 1
lies was much smaller in the list than this year ?—(Ilear;)
Now, what was the nature of the imputation which had
'heen cast upon the persons conducting the prosecutions !
in Ireland ? It was founded a one. aq affidavit of 111 r.
Mahoney, which had 'teen: adverted' to by the Hon.
and Learnedllember for Worcester, tthich affidavit was
of so eXtraordinary 'a character, that he (Mr. Smith)
ventured to assert that no Geprt in Westminster Hall,
and he spoke in the presenceoof, his lion. and Learned
Friends the;. Law Officers of the Crown—no
Court in Westminster Hall *Curd iiave acted upon
a statement which , imputed fraud, but which
failed to state And by whom, that
fraud had been conimittect 'f:Thn Affidavit stated that
in the belief of the-creponero, a)rilfuVand corrupt sup-
pression of the nettles of peesons qualified to be on the
special jury lift hbeen made: Now the singularity
of this swearing *as, that it did 'not assert by whom
this fraud had-been committed. Might not, then, the
imputation just as well attach to thoseVersons 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? What4was'the course he 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.
SHELL--There was no such affidavit made.
Mr. SMITH • could confidently assert, on his own
knowledge, that such was the fact. Mr. Kemmis had
told him over and over again that he was unable to get
any information from Mr. M‘Grath.
Mr. SHEIL—Ho 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. Coe •
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
Mullaghmaet 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 an affidavit, stating that he
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, underthose 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 ho (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 did. He should now allude to the conduct of
those who; had 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 Lea' ned 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 he 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 it
he had done so. Again, with respect to Mr. Duffy,
when that &entleman 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, ifa 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 Worcester
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 tfliversers, 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 bad 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 Governmentwere about to go to law with them,
that they bid the Government defiance, and that " old
birds were nut 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 'I
-nth-nation 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
Ball. 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 lie (the Attorney-General) would tell him where lie
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 lion. and Learned Member wished to see it. Now,*
lie (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
Lientleman the Solicitor-General for England, whom he
consulted, was entirely of his opinion. Those news- 1
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. With a view to carrying out the organization in
every city, town and village, the repeal wardens. were
directed, to circulate the evening Freeman and Pile!
newspapers through every district which had subscribed
20/., and it was further the duty of those repeal wardens
to circulate the Nation, a weekly newspaper, in every
district which had subscribed 10/. 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 1
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
worked out by the instrumentality of newspapers.; Two

I I

of the editors were in the constant htibit of attending
these monster meetings, and Was:he to ~he toldlhat the
editors newspapers Were to be' exempted kora the
cnusequences of the commission pf i
,With
respect; to an absent and respected t.
Whom -he held, and would alwil.ya c,untinite to
h6ld, in the greatest respect, but whd- had. _heen
treated in a very harsh manner,. iinist;,,say at, few
words--the Lord Chief Justich,. fpf-. the Queen's
Bench in Ireland had,' in; common with::thes,drown
lawyers and the jury, been maligned. ii the' -grossest,
manner. ' The Lord Chief Justice had the colicurrence
of his brethren on the bench in the-miknner ifovlifch he
laid down the law to the jury. It should be recollected
that one of his coadjutors Was Alf. Justiee Pe'rrin, who
had been Attorney-Generalunder theWhig-Ge'veimuent.
—(Hear, hear.) But he, too, agreain the manner in
which the law had been laid down by the Lerd;Chief
Justice ; and if he differed from that expositipn, he
would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of -duty
if he did not state why he so differed. ThellOn. and
Learned Member had alluded to the manner in which
the Solicitor-General had sent the docunients 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 try;
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 beet
brought against him personally, which he did not think
he deserved. He 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, whichhe oueht
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, that it must Ija thought he was unwilling
to admit he had been in thewrong. A charge had been
made against him by the Han. Member for Dungarvon
in Ireland—that he had at one time made a speech
containing language very offensive to Roman Catho-
lics. New, 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. 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.—(Bear.) 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 from 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 BROWNS 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.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
PROM TILE EVENING. PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—If parties were to be judged of only
by their outward acts, there might perhaps be some
ground for surprise, and in some quarters even for dis-
appointment, at there being no more difference than is
shown in debate, betiveen the pleasures suggested by
Lord John Russell and those which the present Mi-
nistry, seem willing to adopt. But the same measure
party
mwuh o, il n l
may have a different meaning and a very different effi-
c;syhinaivdiff:yrenat
lhonangdcso;urasned
oft illhisia.s speatalla-- the case
ill-usage,
e a,r andy must fa
in our dealing with a people alienated from us as the
looking at any measure of redresswfiallllivnigewshiotritn—aayseyarll
measureshnrtof
theirnow tporebseenptroposedby n
demands,
Efferent light, accordingly as it comes from those who
lave ever been more ready to repress than to relieve,
or from those who have always done for them as much
as they, were allowed to do—little, perhaps, as the Irish
may think that to be. It is undoubtedly through
uee
dns t,t
ecxe
withp roef s thisvery
eiro
yn
theoof
ulniht
Sydney
dwnoaefryd thes
Smith,
m Ireland, Tt
ho, r
hi ea
st so
hut his
teahttehr
ttehoeeira injustice
r.
give to the Tories
may give
to the better
ittle show of reluctance or regret, to mitigate the tenor
gfirtsot
make
ofupEnanglaonldd,
quarreli s very
ofof its severity;
tanddayth, oourghatweanmya
part of them, full credit fur a wish to repair the wrongs
done by their predecessors, yet to employ them in the
work of reconciliation of Ireland, which is at present
;rue haad been, from
mediator, one
the great
as
i businessitiatteanmdptthine
prfeeusedntfogrenemraatniyon have, as regards
generations. But
between
eaennewithoboseufrara, the sent tohishitmh
the
eheTro
rn s rfnihea
Ireland, something more than the sins of their fathers
to answer for. Disclaim and disguise it as they
will, it is, not
.the less true, that whatever there is in.
Englandltfand there is much of antisCatholiC and anti-
Irish feeling—we might almost say, whatever there is
in this country' of disaffection towards Ireland, is to be
found in their ranks a chief element at the same time,
of their strength as a party, of their weakness and in-
capacity as a Government. The better and wiser
portion among them may regret the existence of
such a spirit, may even lament most bitterly the
violence and indiscretion
.of its occasional outbreaks ;
but there it is in the midst of them, thwarting
their good intentions and tainting all their coun-
sels ; and where it cannot mar their purposes in the
conception, raising up between their fulfilment and the
Irish -people, the still cherished remembrance of past
oppression. This it is that in so great a degree unfits
the whole party for the task of mediation ; and in this
.sense it was both fair anit'pertinent, in Lord J. Russell,
to remind the House, as he did in this debate, of the
very "untoward" speech of the present Lord Chan-
cellor. It is all very well to say that the words have
been explained, and that the explanation or apology,
Such as it was, has been deemed sufficient, and accepted,
we suppose, on behalf of the Irish people, by both Houses
of Parliament. All this may be true enough, and, as re-
gards Lord Lyndhurst himself, it might be unfair, after
this, to charge him with any peculiar bitterness against
any who may .differ from him in religion or in race.
But the question still remains, what is the impres-
sion which the words made, and still make, upon the
Irish people? The insulted nation, for it was an in-
sult, is perhaps entitled to require some better atonement
than that sort 'of apology which passes current in Parlia-
ment ; and the Irish people, in particular, may be ex-
cused fbr its reluctance to place either its honour or its
interest in the hands, at any rate, of the present House
of Commons. On the same grounds, even the various
sallies of Mr. Bradshaw, uttered as they were to the
ears of au applauding constituency, were not altogether
unworthy of notice; for to the Irish such things appear
but as a specimen of the manner in which the suffrages
of Englishmen may be won, and such things, in truth,
blotches as they are upon the otherwise fair and smooth
face of Toryism, betray but too surely the existence of
the bad humours within. For all this, it is the present
pleasure of Englishmen that the Irish as well as them-
selves should be governed by Tories, and it remains only
for us to consider in what way they have dealt, and are
likely to deal, with this great difficulty. .The present
debate contains their defence up to the present time, and
a more suicidal defence than that put forth by their
great advocate, Sir J. Graham, we think we never saw.
STANDARD.—The trial of the Irish prosecutions
in the House of Commons bids fair to rival in tedious-
ness the process which is the subject of scrutiny. Al-
ready six nights have been consumed without, appa-
rently, the slightest progress towards an end ;
but with this consolation, that the Whig
speeches become steadily more shallow and
more stupid, and therefore less mischievous as
they proceed. We doubt whether (to borrow the
Greek phrase) even " the brazen bowels" of a Tipperary
fanatic could • secrete all the poison diffused throup
the capita mortuu of Mr. Benjamin Hawes and Sir
Thomas Wilde's drowsy labours of last night. Mr.
Hawes is very angry with her Majesty's .Ministers
for having done nothing for Ireland, in two years
and a half that they have been in office ; but men
with mare knowledge and better memories than Mr.
Hawes, will be of opinion that her Majesty's Ministers '
have done a great deal for Ireland within their
period of office, short as it has been. First, they
have obviated the rebellion threatened by Mr. 'lames