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

exist to the end of the debate ; but the peculiar position
in which he was placed had caused him to do injustice
to his Noble Frend who answered the motion of the
Right Hon. 4entleinan. 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 discussion was calcu-
lated to east 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 law had vindi-
cated her supremacy--the offenders against her were
prostrate at her feet, and under circumstances like these
the Right Hon. 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. The 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 n-as surrounded by the ingenious
counsel opposed to him, but by the moderation and firm-
ness of' his conduet from beginning to end. That was
an acknowledgment that was extorted from one of the
most eloquent of his adversaries. It had 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 for 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 for 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 made to the Court. Such an application
was made, and it was deliberately decided by the Court
that the defendants 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
obviated all the ;nconvenience which arose from a defective
panel. They might have applied 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 attempt made to impeach the jury
list by what was called a challenge to the array. He
thought a very great mistake had arisen 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 circumstances."—(Hear,
hear.) Now a majority of the judges had decided against
the challenge. The Bight 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.) He 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 Lord Chief Justice said
that the onus of proving the conspiracy was upon the
Crown, and that was only to be 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 availed 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 believe 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 coursa
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 observations 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 Hon. 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,
whpthr 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 Gould they have any confidence in the administra-
tion of justiao, 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
support it? It was the duty of the Government to restore
that confidence in the law which had been shaken. He
knew that suck a change could not be effected suddenly,
but a first step might be taken. Indeed, that first step
had been taken by the Right Hon. Baronet in 1829, by
placing the R,oman Catholics on a level with their Pro-
testant fellow-subjeats. The Marquis of Wellesley also
had done much to improve the administration of justice,
and to restore the confidence of the people in the inferior
tribunals by substituting petty sessions for the secret
administraticn of the law by the magistrates which had
before prevailed. Another step towards the restoration of
confidence in the inferior tribunals was the association of
Roman Catholics with Protestants in the magistracy.
That measure had tended greatly to restore the confi-

dence of the people in the law and to lead them to con-
sider that it was better to trust to the law than to

their own attempts at revenge. It was well known that
until lately the higher tribunals had been held in
disrespect. As a proof of this he would refer to the evi-
dence given in 1825, by one who was now a sufferer from
that system, he meant Mr. O'Connell. (The Hon.
Gentleman here read an extract from the evidence of
Mr. O'Connell before a Committee of the House of
Commons in 1825, in which that Hon. and Learned
Gentleman stated that as none but a high Protestant
party man could be sheriff of Dublin, Roman Catholics
wt.re prevented serving on juries, and that a Roman Ca-
tholic could rather submit to great wrongs than risk a
trial in Dublin.) A. Bill had been introduced to remedy
that grievance but it had not passed. At len,4th the
Act under which the jury in question had been struck
was passed. It was supposed that it would remedy this
state of things. But what had taken place ?
Why, either through fraud or through accident, they
had actually returned to the old state of things, and
every Catholic had been struck off the jury?—(Hear,
hear.) Surely they were not going beyond their duty
in pointing out the ill effects of this s-ystem.----(Cheers.)
Another step had been taken by Sir Michael O'Loghlin,
who had ovdered that no person should be rejected on
account of his religion. No wiser step could have been
taken to restore the conildance of the people than that,
but surely when they found that those regulations were not
fairly carried out; it was right that they should appeal
to the [louse on the subjeet. No one could say but that
thse best effects had followed these regulations. In ge7
nerat, vfirdicts had been given fairly nedep that system,
and it could nok, be denied but that a better feeling hvl
been established in treland.—(Hear, hear.) The Irish
were fond of justiee—L(Hear, bear)--7and if the law were
Foyerly administered, they would have conildpnee in it,
ti. 44 would resort to the law.—(Hear; hear.) He knew
that horrible flriM94l had been eel:witted, and that the

parties committing- itou hos) poi beep Yrop.o4 to justice.