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

Judge Mr. Bond Hughes said he went to the house of
outZgr information—mind
to correct an affidavit. He lodged an-
rmation—mind that—in which there was no
referencee....., to Barrett. He went to Judge Bur-
iZiao_, :louse for the purpose of correcting an
sawli ton there he saw Barrett. When he
person mat' he
immediately said, " I did not see that
the meeting "—" I have n that wh'eh
bra not a fact e H ' . swum .
hL e saw Mr. Wray and spoke to him—
the clerk to the Crown solicitor—told
him—
him of the mistake he had made in his affidavit, and
nesr him to correct it. What did Wray say—
asd dhe do—did he get the information corrected ?
N 0• 0. There was
beasebeen
ed upon the trial what reply Wray made to
sioreq_nest, said he did not remember what Wray
Bond Hughes saw Mr. Kemmis, and said to him
5b,i,".1.", made a mistake in my information—what
tikr2- do?—I stated that which was not true." What
"s'azarais do—was there a new information prepared?
--eowiensettbe old statement amend(d ? No, A warrant
Barrett
had been granted, and that warrant was
tan to bee recalled.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from
se a pposition.) Lest you should think or imagine
the , moment that I am wantonly impeaching
character of this immaculate Crown Solicitor—
it,G,F_a,;tr)—who charged us with tampering v• ith
tth7..tn• the Roman Catholic official—(Bear, hear)—
e tampering with a man who is at this moment in
mitre Ploent of the Government--(Hear, hear)—l
*hick .aka tomou the statement of Mr. Bond Hughes,
her. the Attorney-General, I suppose, thought did not
(IL at all upon the subject—Bond Hughes, a perjurer !
monstrous ! He denounced the persecution of this
venal, but he did not think it at all relevant to com-
eie„,er'slo cate it to the House.—(Hear, hear.) It was on his
ei,Lranaination by Mr. M‘Donough that the fact
itZlt; it did not appear in the direct examination.
raegeuS SWOre to what happened at the Mullaghmast
)x4'4% and made out the case against O'Connell.
..listraet a word about the mistake made by
'hell,: ILI to Barrett—one of the men whose
tome was at stake. Not a syllable did the At-
cro4-General ask Hughes about Barrett. The
tildes; had no curiositon the subject.—(Laughter,
of rtes of" Hear, hear.') It would have been an act
Jererogation to have touched upon any unfortunate
Sgitrehension of Mr. Hughes_ ; but upon his cross-
Was eu 4./tiOn big the subtle Mr. M'Donough the matter
pre bract
will read from an indisputable authority
hou ILract from the cross-examination by Mr. M‘Do- " Take the life,
Jur. The paper is called in Dublin the Recorder of .1 When we do take the means whereby he lives."
ze Opel •
14 1, The charge was corrupting a public officer, and for what
tetie7r;.slDonough—You have taken various opportu- purpose ? For the purpose of removing Roman Catho-
-110111 correcting your statements ? Mr. Hughes—l lies from the jury. Now, is that plausible ?—(Cheers.)
„e Mr.
some. Would much an accusation be received with acclamation
have M`Donough—(Having seen the information) by any gentlemen except those who had been previously
asnihave not named Mr. Barrett. Was he there? Mr. heated by the singularly operative eloquence of the Right
lion; 7-I made a mistake about him on a former occa- Hon. and Learned Gentleman.—(Loud cheering.) When
intuit e was not present, I took the earliest oppor- I found a British House of Commons cheering on an
„ •
of correcting that mistake. Hon. Gentleman while lie was blasting the character of
speak r• M`Donough—Then I presume that he did not a private individual, I was astonished at the want of just
“there ? Mr. Hughes—He did not. feeling on the part of the Attorney-General—l was as-
uM`Donough—When you were under examine- tonished that such an accusation, so destitute of truth, or
about the Solicitor-General, he asked you nothing I should say without a shadow of probability, should
asks., tne dinner at the Rotunda? Mr. Hughes—He be received with acclamation by a British House of
eiterne.nothing about it. Commons.—(Loud cheers.) When the facts are so
sele. i• s_M`Donough—was Barrett there? Mr. Hughes much disputed, when such contradictory assertions are
for b.' '"irrett was not there. I mistook somebody else made, when I say sixty names were lost, when you say
" Mr. at, twenty-seven, when the Recorder says twenty-four alto-
ssoitilies, Donough—l think you stated you took the gether, of whom sixteen were Catholics, ought we not
Iteet " °Pportunity of correcting the mistake ? Mr. to have a Committee to inquire- into, and to search the
tine eOB.--1 did so when I was at the house of Judge matter to the bottom? If there is corruption connected
with a great State prosecution—a matter of such
g
/ es--, h—You saw Barrett at the house of magnitude —if corruption had been charged in a
and perceived your mistake ? Mr. case where a verdict has been obtained, which
• .4 At• verdict has been made a matter of triumph—
With er' M`Donough—Did you amend the mistake then if with respect to it we are contradicting each other, and
tlid wlitiard to Barrett? Mr. Hughes—l did not, but I meeting each other at every step—if you say, yes, when
cove 4,,t° reference to the Rev. Mr. Tierney. I dis- I say, no—is not just you should grant us a committee ?
tit% " ray mistake with reference to Barrett, and men- —(Cheers.) That will not be a vote of censure on the
to Mr. Wray, the clerk to Kemmis. Government. A committee of inquiry into the state of
lietic:• AVM/sough—What did Kemmis say? Mr. Ireland would be a vote of censure, but this committee
)118......j. can't recollect what Kemmis said. will not be a vote of censure. Then give us the coin-
ittr. ttor' nyDonough—When did you mention this to mittee. Let us know how all this has happened. I
ltiett 4traia? Mr. Hughes—l have already said that I presumes after a suggestion, which seems to be approved
4sd i4l3n answer
It at Judge Burton's house." by all sides, that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir itobert
4,
*QM 11,711"ert0 furtherquestions,Mr.Hughes again said Peel) who introduced the Act into Ireland, and it is to
°f the ,s' .
Mr.
s Kemmis made no observation when he told him his merit, for he is a great legal reformer—l presume
teen i:stakeKemmis made no observation—that that in vindication of his own Bill, and to rescue it from the
aid ea, a° Hughes, whose character was so impeached, imputation of unfair working, he will not deny us the means
hiedes..ose conscience was so disturbed, yet Kemmis of investigating those transactions which do clearly re-
!leer ell observation about it.—(Loud cries of "Hear, quire investigation. Let us see what took place when
• 04,,5,"'n the Opposition.) Bond Hughes, one of the the discovery was made, no matter whether the names
afitte4r4 witnesses for the Crown, had made made two were 24, or 60, or 27—a certain number were left out,
Atiel P 6 Kemmis
on his oath, which turned out to be untrue, a wrong was done. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord
11„tten;:: 4erareiS made no observation, and made no Stanley) says, and most justly, that on the ballot the
'l4" ,to remedy the mistake.—(Renewed cries of names are selected by chance. To be sure they may
left "ar," from the Opposition.) No, the mistake be, but the chances ought to be equal on both sides-
- inform .uncorrected, the matter was left as it ,was, the the Government must not play with loaded dice.—
.14 bians were known to be false—they were left so. (Cheers.) It is mentioned in Rabelais, that a distin-
Li the rt make a mistake in the Christian name guished judge when puzzled with a case, used to throw
rtectea say. Mr. Tierney which you subsequently dice for the decision, and according to the dice used to
en, en Mr. Bond Hughes—Yes. Was there decide either for the plaintiff-or defendant. But in this
tett ? •tection made in the case of Mr. Bar- case the dice have always been loaded for the Crown.
'loam 44r. Bond Hughes—No. I merely men- We contend in this case we hate not had our just pro-
,
portion of contingencies. Why, it was an old practice
t°r•qeothe House must recollect that the Solid- of this House, in choosing Committees, to put names of
sienita era' had been guilty of such a sin of orris- Members into a glass, and to draw them by chance.
'tent hat which I mentioned just now—and in the Now, suppose. the names of twenty-seven Tories had
14§4,_.• lifists'ce the House will I think not be been left out—(Cheers)—suppose that by any larceny,
4744.: '1 that the Attorney-General made that or loss—and very often one touches on the other—
°O against Mr. O'Connell, that he had said twenty-seven •or sixty names of Tory Members were
°Cllol,7t_dHugliet mentioned the matter to the Crown- left out, and that it turned out a Whig Committee—men
to rescue himself from the result of the pro- bound by their oaths, and as little likely to act contrary
.I.taesst,ss-(Cheers.) Oh ! Sir, last night the Attorney- to their consciences as a Protestant jury, and suppose
Slid plought he had made out his case.—(Cheers the omission were discovered, what would the Tories
ttettoeter.) It was a matter of great joy and con- say tben ?—(Loud cheers.) Would they not say, give
100, the manner in which he thought he had ex- us a new ballot? Put the twenty-seven names back?
°N. in "Pse points. But, Sir, hope the House will Would not That be. Said.? and very fairly said; and is not
the 60
ai
Mind that those gentlemen who charged me with this exactly- the case here ?—(Loud cheers.) There were
eultd,..• truntion of .Grath—who charged me with per- ten Catholics left on the list.; suppose by any chance
tetis:ftg•M`Grath to act with treachery—the House will there liaccheezi. thirteen, the Crown could only have
sittiowrx that those gentlemen, so liberal upon this accu- struck •offtwelve, one would have been left; they could
against us, and, to use a common phrase, so not have got rid of him. Of our fair number
us, to turn the tables on us by calumny, have them- of tickets in this lottery we have been de-
, 4474,hier:
athese transactions, adopted the course which I prived, and a • wrong has in that particular
to spealt.--(lid Tes
ting which it is not now my intention been done us, whether it was the result of fortune or the
Sip, the bills had cheers.) The indictment had been sent result of fraud.—(Cheers.) Then, what was the course
sondes on - we adopted ? We took this course, we made a motion to
the back of the indictment were demanded by quash the panel, and here the Attorney-General was
s
. defendants.tro That was a most reasonable applica- perfectly triumphant. He did not say a word of the
tinited Such an application in this country—this country, next proceeding., but I will take care that I will do so.
th.,: with Ireland (and I hope long to be united to The Court said we cannot quash the panel. We then
tint .ccountry in equal rights and privileges); Ireland, made various offers—we said, let the Recorder of Dub-
. • *of__ oeuntry which Honourable Gentlemen opposite lin review the list. The Court said there is a difficulty
libertls__d_ to be united in a perfect equality, and in that. We said put all the names in the ballot again,
• been say in England the invariable practice has including those left out. The Court said there is a difli-
oe thy, furnish to the traversers the names which were culty in that. In short, the Court refused to quash the
teruZ.Ottk of the indictment. May I net ask the At- panel, and refused to give any kind of remedy. But a
".'General for England to correct me if Ibe wrong? most impartial step was afterwards taken. We chal-
f ten Attorney-General intimated that he was correct.) lenged the array, and on that the Attorney-General said
'e'k thiusC'ernoeunout high. authority, then, in saying
.that not a word.—(The Attorney-General was understood to
tee try, it is the invariable custom to furnish say here, " I did.") Ido not remember with any par-
alqt7,,,ett.party with the names of the witnesses on the ticular minuteness the circumstances that did take place,
!tie the Indictment. In Ireland, where, of course, there but the House will forgive me, if r, draw their attention
• Fetaterfeet equality—(The Right Honourable Gen- to what Ido recollect of them. We challenged the ar-
yersers here spoke in a tone of bitter irony)—the tra- ray, and the form of that challenge is most material. In
Ihtsse aPPlied to be furnished with a list of that challenge we stated that " several lists in a certain
,4_4ltintnames, and they were met by a peremptory paper-writing, purporting to be a :general list of the
this what is called assimilating the jury, and purporting to be made out of the several lists
t~Nitrnistr 7115
Gena,;ori of the law between the two countries ? set forth and signed as aforesaid, was illegally
"nen opposite are very willing to talk of dulently made out, for the purpose and anent of
mitl when it suits their purpose. The Noble Lord prejudicing the defendants." These were all the facts
(Lift the air)" for the Colonies ha said, again and again, put in issue, to use the legal phrase. We not only
-9111seees.,Juugas were perfectly unanimous, on every mentioned the names, but we also put in issue the fraud.
• tilen ilie7e‘Yit.h the trials. But I assert that it is_ only We put in_issue the. .intention to prejudice the Wen-
-nsehs manity serves your purpose that youoly on it, dents. We put in issue what you have suggested
he
d.is_s_en_t__ientvpinion was expressed--,- has been done by the defendants for their own benefit.
hen? If the Crown had joined issue in these facts, which
• la • 'z'ne—When Mr. Justice Perrin pronounced might have been tried in half an hour by the Court, for
Naion th
44_04 with
that the traversers were entitled td. be fur- it was not a question to be tried by a jury, we having.
sets e names of-the witnesses. Oh; Of course put in issue the most material facts, the loss of the
notice taken of their dissentience, but how names which was material, and the allegation of fraud
th'fati the,,e‘ac unanimity of the judges blazoned forth which was still more so, was it not the duty of the
I,l.other Was a concurrence of opinion on the part of Crown to hate joined issue upon them under these eir•
med h judges with the Chief Justice, when he en • eumstances? if it had joined issue, and the decision had
ttneere.s' Vow of the law as applicable to the case ? been in its favour, there would be an end of our objec-
t will ask the House if it does not think tions, and if the facts had been found against it, then
471410:1,1 zrom the harmony of the bench, Right Hon. of course the panel must have been altered, or some
b„ '4 Gentlemen and Noble Lords opposite, other steps must have been taken. Then how did the
censeclnences so available to their Court decide ? Were the Court unanimous ? The
- tire
‘s, course
toth_eue.h.
an.,,,,seinntrienee of policy and prejudices, that Court were not. Mr. Justice Perrin, who introduced
of opinion prevailed on the. the Act into Ireland, which he borrowed,. from the re-
drs'e of 'ere!" equally unfavourable to their formed code of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)—
eh? Policy and prejudice in those trials, is not to be Mr. Justice Perrin, who knew the operation of that
aeTtt that .a I stated before, Mr. Justice Perrin de- Act, who was familiar with all its details, who had
eaes lt was
s, to h, a Matter of right to allow the tra- scrutinised and adopted its machinery—Mr. Justice
pr.„l4tirton the list of the witnesses ; and Mr. Jus- Perrin decided that the challenge of the array WAS
at=.. eh ' Englishman, with some remnant left good, and said that the .demurrer should be over-
,---magnis,at'acteristies by which his countrymen were ruled .—(Hear.) But the Crown took advan-
Oats', 070, said, although it could not be required as tage of the decision of' the majority of the Court,
110.1. ten %tight, yet it would be injudicious to refuse and went to trial, although one of the judges had declared
1/4"' or the e Altorney-General. who went into all that that the list of the jury had been stained and corrupted
so with respect to the right of the tra- by suspicion. My Learned Friend sugeests to me that
ironed th a names of the witnesses, he should have a demurrer always admits the facts for the purposes of
-.• 14. Mr,Whiteside,
7hOiPiniona of Justice Burton. Justice Perrin, the argument. That is the truth ; but I did not dwell
let'trnalle....et_ttaide, the eloquent counsel for Mr. upon it, because it is a legal fiction. I dwell upon what
hay e so'( Loud and continued cheering)—and then is more substantial. The Crown had the opportunity of
been 2.4 remember that an application which would ascertaining a fact of the utmost materiality.—
Ike Veorw-iteted in this country had been denied in (Hear.) The Crown shrank from that investiga-
wcf7u-.4l4edstieeikilanding thestrongopinionsmentioned by tion, and went on with the case, with the protest of one
Jughminded Judge Burton, the decision of the judges against it. The verdict which you have
Att.:tote:side.
,et erten, and the strong arguments of Mr. , obtained has been obtained through the interven-
, iset irney.Gesuear, hear. and cheers.) I admit that the I tion of a jury condemned by one of the judges
t was
__noerel had allowed the trial to be postponed, who sat in that Court.—(Hear, hear.) If all the
ah-`144 okthrer 'fed that it was necessary to procure evi- judges were unanimous as to the abstract law stated
who there wel'att of the Crown,. and the next was, ' lsy the Chief Justice, the judges were not unani-
sex tht:was k:e but twenty-five Catholics on the panel, mous, they were not at all unanimous, as to the verdict
Alon 6 apfti,ll that many more ought to have been ; because one of the judges condemned the panel, the
• Ndttcade by Jury list. But what I deny is the asser- foundation of the verdict ; and if the panel be shaken,
1111,2fthe c 'le Hon. Gentleman that this was the , the entire superstructure, if I may so say, raised upon
itie..7ent that urt, for Judge Burton expressed his asto- , it, must of course fail too.—(Cheers.) I come now to
'll4, atta only twenty-five Catholics were upon the another portion of this case, the striking off of Roman
bec std Lea "'nen this surprise was expressed the Catholics from the jury. I see I am occupying the
tie didrned Attorney--General, having the case House too long—(Loud cheers)—but it is a case
INN:: he' alle ersent to postpone the trial with the of paramount importance. It is a case in
tko. , the .g (I, to allow time to the traversers to which I was counsel, in which I inevitably took
flf the necessaryA evidence for their defence. But a very warm interest—l should feel ashamed
• ktikteir Post •
~n'tneYsGeneral had refused this applica- if I had,not—and with the facts of which I am, to a
wee -roretedirs'neraeut, and insisted on the traversers certain extent, inure familiar than others—and lam not
the Itt-kperfecta, temtlyd and that upon a panel which conscious that in anything which I have stated I have
htp eorder Which I say fearlessly and distinctly departed iti•the slightest degree from the facts.— (Hear,
lent,. • St/avriself declared to be imperfect.-- hear.) Now it is said by Mr. Kenimis that there were
Cfrts (the Recorder of Dublin)—lt was ten Roman Catholics on the list. Eight of them I ad-
„ mit were most properly struck •,ff.—(Hear, hear.) I
..,wtn 0, the S' it was imperfect. I now come to a cannot for a moment pretend that eight men who were
• cen‘ Ira, 6 Jury list, and I shall begin by declaring members of the Repeal Association, or subscribers to
sat
tlrt or tLe Pl., and sincere conviction that to the Be- its funds, ought to have been • retained upon the jury.
e Ilighte,,,lty or
0 .44
,wit 4 eat
moral
there was to be attached I could no more contend for it than I could contend
end ree„s blame for any one of the transees that Mr. ',sheriff I, alkner,,should have been retained upon
oPiepfier thkTet"btil) lists, and I belie% e that he jury.— (Cries of " Ileur, from the Oosition.),Butthere
bona. LOY it right hand sheuld wither rather were to men who were not members of t Rcpeal
Repeal
Mee vs" eyes, e I make this statement, in which I feel , Fund. Mark the affidavit of Mr. Kenunis Lit is in these
• for 26 Learn e who knows the Right Honour- '
atur rae if Gentleman will• terms :—He says "that he believed, and still believes,
saY that-,n although
concur,hethememberss the Repeal Association, or had subscribed to
414 41)04--it was his Paramount
de concur' d its und Nowi Mr. Hendrick is a -Roman Catholic,
Kok was his dutyduty to have remained and about Mr. endriek the Attorney-General did not
Contignin to have been present when say a single word last night ; he did not even mention
the jury list was being.made up. lie his name.—(Hear, hear.) Now see what course has

had a painful task to do, but I have, at the same time, to
make some allowance for the acts of the Right Honour-
ab'e Gentlemen. The Dublin Evening Mail—by the by,
a high authority (ti 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 in the purpose of national
education in Ireland.—;Loud laughter.) But having
acquitted the Recorder oF every • sort of moral impute- .
Von.. ,til' th:•re are some circumstances which do appear
to me. with. respect to he m vision lists, which were quite ,
inexplicable, and which appear to me eminently to cal,
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 theßecorder
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 ky 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