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

10
iei r
`r

-.lel
._:.4k

-~-.. _

ittililcetiios---e hopes had been disappointed, and there was no
.„. hood of anything better being realised while that
night lion.Gentleinan was surrounded by the same party .
An R ,
on. Gentleman opposite had said that the people of
le.,relnd were glad of the presence of the soldiery, be-
upendneach soldier spent 55. day there—that put him in
°f all old song, the burden of which was " lle
s half-a-crown out of sixpence a day."—( Laughter.)
uot, allovvinn• the Hon. Gentle'sstatement to be
trtrue, did not6that mo w ney, hichm an sweme
, from th. notber of
tox in Ireland, amounted to upwards of a million and
tn sterling, Cottle out of the pockets of the people of
gland.? There had been no reduction of the military
or naval force in Ireland.—(Hear, hear, from Sir R. Peel.)
617 e said this Was only an Irish question, but that he
e ledi for enormous expense was entailed upon the
peopletoward:fiEngland by the system of misrule pursued
t Ireland. The Right Hon. Baronet said he
Mi.o hold Ireland by military occupation, but by the
nistration of the laws in the trial by jury. Was
20,000Pr7er Way to support trial by jury to pour
ender roops into the country ? When Ireland was
wit er the Government of Lord Normanby, although he
wasthwarted in his good iatentions, he did much good, and
pet, '4"Ply and gratefully appreciated by the Irish
Pl. It
on the was on that ground he deplored the situa-
Le Government placed itself in. If they gave Ire-
CAlair constitutional privileges they might withdraw
. htr_ lorie to-morrow. He wished that the Noble
th
g e.G`umade his motion a direct vote of censure on
overement. At all events he looked on it in that
hite4lit,aand as such he should vote for it. He did not
bleu: to move an amendment that should place the
Pter in that respect out of all doubt.—(Sir Robert
trot It ja not too late.)—(Laughter.) No, he should
late e 121" e such an amendment as at that
tut ;!°llr. he did not wish to play Marplot.—(Laughter.)
sioul"e wished this side of the House were more unani-
the izwi,th regard to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He wished
he le Mover of the resolution had told them what
the 6-'l, Prepared to do. Would he settle the question of
that ? Would he extend the suffrage ? But, on
the • • they were not to have "finality," even on
pri43of side.—(Hear, hear.) Would he give the
iie°f Ireland a fair share of every civil
• ? If he was not prepared to do all this,
tofpite;eiTeee
they
ofbemy en would be of no use. It was a change
wanted, not a change of men. He wanted
onlyhtd ti Union really effected, for till this moment it
litho been a union of party not of the people.
.He
the re he • th,e Right Hon. Baronet was not present during
aoleettas which he made on his Government, and he
Ithjuittherefore repeat them. He had said that it was
Irele„,it° the people of England, unjust to the people of
Ile 1;1 and unwise with regard to the whole nation.
reth,,ted the Right Hon. Gentleman would bear those
lier:4 in_mind, and reflect en them, when he laid hi.i
litr‘von the pillow.—(Laughter.)
the 14us,' A. HAMILTON said it was desirable that
ttepopi utord and Tenant Commission should make its
la kin-ails-320n as possible. But the House should bear
"Ilea the great labour attending suck an inquiry,
*se& ,":" heard that one half of the farms in Ireland
fstk,"Yluer five acres in extent ; that five out of six
were under 15 acres, that half of the families
the rural population were living in the lowest
tlt& '°f destitution in cabins, not having more
ire Oil. Mein ; that 68 per cent. of the far-
?gee ~were without capital, knowledge, or land.
heate the statements of the census of 1841. Now,
...cotaki,...ett the great advantage resulting from the
,41rto o.°ll, Would be the effect which the evidt nee
neap e'bie it would have on public opinion. It was
IteXten cdrrious that, to have that effect, evidence must
ritiewnsively taken, and the Report deliberately con-
siooe-"' Re could assure the Mouse, that the Commis-
aei trts. were determined to probe matters to the bottom,
Ire make known to her Majesty the s tate of things
°thst The Hon. Member for Belfast, and some
'N. too". Members, had intimated that the Commission
attor, much of a landlord Commission, but he could
kot„, t ?louse that the Commissioners were
top „11°Its to receive evidence from the class
r and they had also taken steps to
011.41" 'local evidence taken on the spot. The
of exei,einher for Roscommon had said that a good deal
44%th `ernent had been caused by this Commission, and
t,„eiteh,l:°°kl disappoint public expectation. But that
bee itLnt did not originate with the Commissioners.
Felffie adopted every means of putting before the
tesitiu..'ne reel objects of inquiry, and had taken every
Pessep,„,' to prevent the supposition that they were em-
Pree&-V0 Settle disputes between parties. He then
t,respect ed`to notice the conduct of the Government, with
1 el" t° tfte- repeal agitation. With regard to the de-
tosa_444ttlng down the excitement, he had heard
taetio,l37arnatit. orfof the Government with very great satis-
Zatt, h,,,'"e Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of
"41.11 -"` gi:tan a conclusive explanationov of that delay,
thougnt that the conduct of the Gernment with
sae,
_to that agitation was marked with great forbear.
t tueetAntion, wisdom, and firmness. He believed
talk, .e "le Protestants in Ireland, and those of the Ro-
,,reed 4b"lolies most worthy of consideration, were
;Leitsm„ "4ePealers, or utterly opposed to it. The
itosell,t, of last year was a forced excitement,
the result of a deep discontent. Even in
for of
„,War, he should be under no apprehensio..n.
`oleto the)
of his countrymen, who would be still
,_Ve& Preserve Ireland for the Queen, and would be
kfe tte? resist all the efforts of foreign or domestic foes.
Nieetieed that the Government had resorted to the ,
'keest..-T,POWers of the law, and had not asked for any
eotitatiranal powers. He hoped they would still
edout7le thee polio
and if they did so, and with it
tootiilareasur se of improvement, the agitation would
Aehi "'nbsid
6. -of e• and Ireland would cease to be the battle-
-0-"„ wit rhrties in ti House. With respect to the
Ireland, the esSeech of the Noble Lord the Se-
-ro 'or the Colonies would be highlysatis factory to the
ltottpB,„,,t4ll,ta of Ireand. He contended it was the duty
k,hristian State to maintain a religious estab
41`11-4.11t• Re should not inquire on what greetndsthoef
thiettunt religion had been selected as the. religion
an
_
It tate. It was sufficient for him that it was 0,
ta their duty to bring within the reach of the Pe,!?_
e great truths which that religion contained. He
Ikoot believe that the Catholics of Ire-
, 'eh any was
grievances in that the religion
~llitt• State was rocognised and supported as such.
.Itt principle was .recognised, the maintenance of a
flu on could not be Gaged on the proportion of the
Xls4l4ta, professing it. That this principle must be ap-
-I,ll,,,,Within reasonable Limits. He was prepared to
wasthat the Church in Ir:eland was not a rich Church.
nth
income of the beneficed clergy, in Ireland
At
OOt
4 °Ye 216/. The number of benefices in Ireland
t • 11400
Idet/ and if the Protestant . population was
'lags "long them, it would give an average
ehint - Of 600 each ; and was the amount
Five stated too much for an educated and
- es. ?
Regarding_ England_ as a great empire,
74oUgh ''sr ally that flit across the page of history, he
t she had been raised to power for some higher
tuts: 144 Z til, the promotion of transient. interest. He
;;:gteipi "e was the depository of the highest and best
riate,„et 'tie had nt 'tied, and would continue to
Idtti.leitZienr.; if she idid.ainot, like other empires,
CALF w to her original insignificance.
o.(st POWELL said, with- respect to the con-
t. Nilo tate prosecutions, they had excited distrust
all Ireland. The proceedings had placed
1( been 'tints in the most invidious position. They
t rnade the meitins of convicting the most pop?.
ttell that
00% had ever, lived in Ireland, or, perhaps, in
0 the "llitry. So far from the prosecution putting
l'Post..l4ttation, it would perpetuate it. He should
Sir Ire
a:kati 1"--4bdiVGLAS, after some observations which
tk&kY re&n. a. said he believed that Ireland had, in
tnitti°n, ts as regarded trade, manufactures, . and.
setil. Tien treated with great liberality and gene
tett,,_l!tore-1. ineoMe-tax afforded an instance of this dee-
kn.: 'was inconsistent to delay any longer,th
"tit of agitation for the repeal of the union by
th,4Pee-g,144 of the law. He had before stated that
van teeelarrd loved Ireland; notwithstanding that,
N'es:titittin'oe that the great master curse of Ireland
t
stkVilocio Z Re thought the Government did not
t vtoro -,l"gh; *but he gave them full credit for actd-
&,, kileti-ttand eeTectually at what they considered
ss' hsto te-76.--.-(lle,tr, hear.) He had heard attri-
-`ln in tiles* House fiendish intentions,
114%&3711• - their delaying the proclamation.
V. the' that their' conduct
irresistible.—(Hear,
merciful,
Preparations' is-sere
._s
:yattisat, hkgteat, pyessing erae,:of Ireland were, in his
ekas-:Yaical ased social ; and impartial measures
L'eto,lal thein• Men must re,:ilaimed from that
tht-' SOCialnine Irish were,
klev w Co which.
. Chdd be ciiioablepolitical pri-
t;.l4o i&t. lo:4„._Etgraled with the Noble Lord the Member.
of exercising
niattotrais* 'gat, they should direct their chief attention
• ethtee, ssittfle condition of the Irish population. by
rue. krts, mechanics, the learned professions.
Veh 13 of SOdi 1 advancement. 'rho struggle
&„_ a
1, all: par I going forward was intended to restore
is',l tad who had never done any good for
tetpared yuaa Were incapable of doing any. He
taek4t4,_ the le_tb3 Concede everythin whicwh. could be
seßst#4l 0)44 -"anon Catholics consistent
.ith safety
1%6_44.114%141g
..thChurch and the Constitution. Not-
1t017:43,
i.n.°ll, it,
„ive clamour that was raised for a
.repeal
kkqe, the 1, as nevertheless certain that the Irish
ve ie. their .41Perie.1 Parliament had more power to
441,11111,i3, rlev es than men of the same stamp would
affs/tait:).car ; tl't Itliament. He repeated now what he
tst`4,l4 &e(l3' vs‘...!utt agitation should be put down before
o PI '°Posed fer the grievances of Ireland,
14- atve ded that the best course for a Coni-
tlf& ‘tra, ant to adopt was on the cessation of
all
titre:
ttiplatedry:i:tansnedinlefegs affectionately andin
tetilelet "le real to.se subjeote of complaint earnestwhieh
tk444 't he of Ireland.
tr• Veh PooPle of Ireland would ever v
er scoutedaid
0174 bonne, a un q• the differences might be thatwould
t 4 thilNttiki end to th of a foreign foe would at
444,11`r then
1 : and, in proof of this, he need
kenek on`lo.orie f the opposition the Irish offere
1111- to the; 'lair att, smpting to land in that country
• tipre fo. 1798. There was only one
t
Nswgelis t We&
idol the
he It 'ished to refer before he
407 Who irtthe speok 1h of the Noble Lord (John
11414 il, th"tleed 'us motion, injudicious as it
Vo_tted hatetrg 14111 More is sjudicious one of the Noble
tle..aer-t the eur for Sunda le:and (Howick), but that de-
so11). IXember for Roscommon (The
'640 Ile 1 the inhabitants of the
a motelt" eta tu to 1 Leal' eti uPol
-ie. Pre Dire. °°- so upon ach other as to make.
11.4rj1111 nYthi ng more beautiful, anything
th re bleb ‘.1.1()t be suggested ; and if that speech
Ought he people in that brotherly
tsl-1 eer_ ellipir.6ut to be
" Lor then ' ihedistings -fishing feature of
,' trot eth suoti d, should. he consider that
4110.: 11:4,..1) ad o' one a degree of
4f. then Pe i'otn
_it. good he
th t°Be, and addressed the House as
1 (lid net 3
4terttb,e of the Cise last *night at the conclusion
t dot
-eY;%rieer,"-;'4.g. nom as d Learned Gentleman
.tps or Ireland, for two reasons—the
°Deceit.'
faf the 114* 1100. and Learned

sc....dewan did not terminate till nearly midnight, and I
despaired of rivetting the attention of the House at so
late au hour ; the next, that I was anxious he should
afford the the opportunity of looking into the case
he referred to, and in which I was engaged fifteen
years ago, as the details of that case were obliterated
from my memory, and I wished to look into the report
of it, on purpose to vindicate myself in regard to the
serious charge which has been brought against me.—
(Hear, hear.) I applied at the conclusion of his address
to the Right Hon. Gentleman for that book, and he, with
great courtesy, at once lent it to me. The House must,
last evening, have been under the impression, from the
expressions of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the
individual referred to had been tried by a packed
jury.—(Hear, hear.) That word packed was used,
and as I was one of the counsel engaged in the prose-
cution that word must have been meant to apply to me.
—(Cheers.) It was said at all events distinctly that I
had exercised the prerogative of the Crown entrusted
to me on that occasion by the sanction of the law officers
of the Crown, for the purpose of placing upon the jury
twelve men the most opposed in religion to the person
about to be put upon his trial. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man stated that he was present on that occasion. He was
present. He was one of the regular prosecutors in the
case, and I think he will do justice to me when I say,
that my conduct on that occasion was not the subject of
censure either from the law officers of the Crown, who
superintended my conduct, or of the advisers of the pri-
soner.---7(Hear.) I say that no cognisance was taken
by the Crown, and that fis the prisoner did not complain,
nor his counsel, there is no ground for reproof of my
conduct.—(Cheers.) On that occasion the course
which I took, the prisoner being charged
with murder, was this. The Crown had 20
challenges—acting for the Crown, I had the right to
set aside twenty persons without assigning any cause,
and he (the prisoner) exercised his right, his undoubted
right of setting aside also.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I was
anxious fo "have a mixed jury.—(Loud cheers.) I was
anxious to carry into effect the principles which have
uniformly guided me in this House, in Courts of Law,
everywhere, and on every occasion, of religious tolerance
and perfect impartiality. (Loud cheers.) Finding
that Roman Catholics were challenged by the pri-
soner, in the pursuance of my duty I challenged
a sufficient number of Protestants. The result was,
that there were seven Catholics and five Protestants
called, and afterwards another was added by consent of
both parties.—(Cheers.) The truth is, there had been
an agreement before between both parties that the jury
shouldle composed of six of each religious persuasion.
In page'69o of the Report of the Trial, which, by the
courtesy of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, I
hold in my hand, is the address which, on that occasion,
I made to the jury, and I am sure the House will excuse
me if, in my desire to lay this matter fairly before it, I
read one or two extracts from it of a somewhat lengthy
character.—(Hear, hear.) The report is, I admit, most
faithfully drawn up. It was drawn up at the time of
the trial by Mr. Brewster, of the Leinster Circuit, and
who is at present the law adviser to the Castle.—(The
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman here read a long
quotation from the address, which called strongly upon the
jury to give the prisoner the benefit of every doubt which
might arise in their minds as to his guilt.) I now ask,
when I consented to another juror, and when I ad-
dressed the jury in such language as this, whether it is
not enough to prove that whilst I was anxious to do my
duty on the one hand, I was anxious on the other not to
bear unfairly on the prisoner, but to give to him every
chance of proving his innocence I—(Cheers.) But I
trust the House will permit me to 'read another extract,
to satisfy it that I am not actuated by any blood hound
instinct—(Cheers)--yes, blood-hound was the word—
against the person then upon his trial. (Loud
cheers.) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman
(Mr. Smith) used the words, in describing my conduct
against a man tried for his life, and he put an emphasis
on the expression which did not escape the House; and
I did think that he wished to` convey—l trust a most
involuntary but certainly a very egregious misapprehen-
sion of the conduct which on that occasion I adopted.
—(Cheers.) (The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman
read another very long passage of his speech on the occasion
alluded to, in which he implored the jury, if they be-
lieved there was any misapprehension on the prisoner's
mind as to the word " Fire," instantly to acquit him.)
lie proceeded—l think I have satisfied the House, and
even the Right Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man himself, that on the occasion he has so
triumphantly referred to, I did not avail myself of any
Prerogative but what my position required me to do, and
that I did not evince any spirit which deserves cen-
sure from any man.—(Loud cheers.) I have thus ex-
plained the reasons for my conduct, and the result. If
he• (the Irish Attorney-General) had followed the
example which on that occasion I gave—if he, in the
constitution of the jury in the recent trials in Dublin,
had allowed five Roman Catholics and seven Protestants
—(Loud cheers)—had he allowed two Roman
Catholics—nay, even one to remain, I think he
would not only have followed a more merci-
ful, but, I think, he would have followed
a much more judicious course.—(Great cheering.) That
he might have done so I think I shall be able to show
in the course of the observations which I feel it my duty
to make, and that without violating any rule of pro-
priety, or exceeding
j the bounds of fair discussion.—
(Hear, hear.) The jury that sat in Dublin was com-
posed of twelve Protestants; but the House had not yet
been apprised that eight of that jury had invariably
voted against Mr. O'Connell on the several elections
when he was a candidate for that city.—(Loud cheers.)
No doubt they had a perfect right to vote against him,
and he blamed them not for it; but when he found them
on the jury he could not help stating the fact to the House.
But, in fact, there is a double charge ; first, the exclu-
sion of every Roman Catholic ; and next, the introduc-
tion of eight persons who, if they were not personal op-
ponents of, were politically hostile to, Mr. O'Connell.
Allusion had been made to Mr. Thompson, a wine-mer-
chant, and some doubt had been entertained with regard
to the fact of his having seconded a resolution in the
Corporation on the subject of repeal. The resolution,
after a certain preamble, was this :—" We are deter-
mined to support and maintain by every means in our
power the legislative union between Great Britain and
Ireland." There was another gentleman, of still more
marked politics than Mr. Thompson, and he seconded
the resolution. I find in Saunders' News Letter
of the 14th of February, 1840, that a great meeting
of Protestants had been convened by the Lord
Mayor, at which a resolution was come to for the pur-
pose of petitioning the Imperial Parliament. This meet-
ing was held in the King's Rooms. Mr. Jones at that
meeting said, " Whilst the great agitator, the disgrace
and scourge of Ireland, is now endeavouring to secure
Papal ascendancy, I call upon you, by every considera-
tion of character and of religion, to stand by our prin-
ciples. Let our motto continue to be, as it always has
been, ' Protestant ascendancy in Church and State, and
no surrender ;'" and then followed loud and long conti-
nued cheering, with shouts of " No surrender."—
(Cheers.) Then the High Sheriff, Mr. Falkner, who was
on the late jury, proposed the third resolution, the effect
of which was, that they had heard with deep alarm that a
Bill had been
_introduced into Parliament relating to the
Municipal Corporations of Ireland, by which it was
proposed to transfer the franchise to other hands than
those to which it justly belonged. That gentleman on
another occasion, when he was a candidate for the office
of sheriff, made a speech, which was reported on the
13th of April, 1839, in Saunders' Letter, and in the
Evening Mail of the same day. In that speech he said,
" Protestant ascendancy must be upheld, and I shall
always be ready to give the charter toast as cordially
and as emphatically as it has ever been given." Mr.
Hinde said, " What charter toast do you mean ?" and
Mr. Falkner said, " Need you ask me ? I mean the
glorious and immortal memory of William the Third."
Now I say, ought not that man to have been struck
off the jury ? I think, if the House will con-
sider all the facts of this case when they
look at the variety of circumstances which con-
cur in throwing light upon it—they will come
to the conclusion that the jury were not qua-
lified to give a verdict in the case. I think that
Mr. O'Connell should have begun his speech in ad-
dressing the jury in the words of the unfortunate Louis.
" I look for judges, but I behold none but accusers here."
—(Cheers.) My opinion is, that if a verdict was
legitimately obtained in this case—if the law of conspi-
racy was not strained—if by fair mettns and through a
proper jury, you obtained a victory over the leader of a
Catholic people, then you the Attorney-General for
Ireland, the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
and the Secretary for the Colonies may legitimately
indulge in the exultation which your speeches
have exhibited. But if, on the other hand, the victory
was not fairly obtained—if you adhered to the forms of
justice, but in fact violated it—if a plot--no, he would
say, if a project had been concocted in the Home-office,
by which an ostensible connivance was to be shown
with respect to monster meetings, seditious harangues,
and inflammatory newspaper publications, for a period
of nine months, all led by a political antagonist;—and,
if foully or fortuitously—for whether foully or for-
tuitously the result must be just the same—a consider-
able portion of the jury list was suppressed,
and the defendants were deprived of the benefit
of the Act of Parliament which was introduced
by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her
Majesty's Government in this country, for he has the
merit of introducing it into this country, and upon
which Mr. Justice Perrin, one of the judges of the
Court of Queen's Bench, in the trial at bar, delivered
his opinion—if a sectarian jury were empanelled, for the
purpose of trying a man whowas accounted as their libe-
rator by the Irish Catholic people, I say that so far from
its being a cause of exultation, I think the victory you
have obtained will ultimately be as detrimental to the
victors as it is now fatal to the vanquished.—(Cheers.)
It may leave a deep feeling of animosity, and will be
followed by retribution, slow indeed, but fearful. I
shall now advert to the form of the Privy Council, be-
cause the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland adverted
in this House, at the eorrimenopment of the debate, when
I was unable to attend, being confined in Ireland by in-
disposition—the Noble Lord adverted to an observation
me in the COurt of Queen's Bench. He said—
butwhat he did say—he said that I
madehby
e wasrepresentedmgt
itiaastwn in
an insult W the Catholics of Ireland,
that Mr. Blake and Chiefßarom Brady were not summoned
to the Privy Council. What I said was that the uniform
usage iu Ireland, until this occasion, was to summon every
atlsieforrrtilvtey
fiCrosutntcimile;
dbeuptarutepdonfrtolmns,
aonccdasthioant.
memberti ar t
Blake,ru l rule
casion, although he !had been summoned before to the
a Roman Catholic, was excluded on that oc-
' oin tierde
ltaon
dt h en
atidi ge ia-
fiPerdivoymCeoeunocfil.C'hllielfr.
IBtelamk
eemwbraasncaperp of
an—and Mr. Blake never
by II Ireland
took part in the violent
Conservative states
n—appointed by Lord Wellesley, the
statesman-and
proceedings
was agitated. After he was at a meeting at
not
Charlemont-house—after, and before, you ex:
chided him from the Privy Council.—(Cheers.)
The facCof his being in the habit of attending the Privy

Council shows that he was not a violent politician, for
no man ever attended the Privy Council in Dublin if he
was inveterately hostile to the existing Government. I
stated that it was to be regretted—l said no more than
this—l said that it was to be regretted that on that oc-
casion you had departed from the rule—which you
have admitted you did—and that on that occasion you
excluded Roman Catholics who were not supposed to
be exceedingly hostile to you. And I further added—
and I hope I made the observation without any personal
disrespect, for I did not intend it—that the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin, by whom the jury list
was to be revised, and it was an untoward circumstance,
had been summoned to the Privy Council, from which
Roman Catholics were excluded.—(Cheers.) I don't
think I have misrepresented the statement of the Noble
Lord. I do not think that I have mistated the facts now.
May I venture to say this—l think that if Mr. Blake
had been upon the Privy Council, he would have sug-
gested to you, on the Friday when you met, the pro
priety of immediately drawing up the proclamation, and of
posting it up, at once, thereby avoiding that fearful ha
zard which, through the instrumentality of Mr. O'Con
nell, you have just cause to rejoice did not result in
misfortune. The observation of my Right Hon. Friend,
the Member for Edinburgh, I think, is entitled to great
weight. The Clontarf meeting was announced for three
weeks. You waited until the Friday before the Sunday
upon which the meeting would be held, and then you
summoned the Privy Council. You came to a decision
and you drew a proclamation which might have been
contained in two lines. I have the proclamation here,
and I am sure that it did not require any peculiar me-
ditation, for it does not exhibit any great accuracy.—
(Laughter.) This proclamation was got up under the
peculiar care of the Noble Lord. I certainly must say,
that it is a matter of some surprise, that you should
meet on the Friday—when you determined on the pro-
clamation, and not put it up immediately. You
waited until Saturday afternoon, when the no-
tice could not have been conveyed to the nu-
merous multitude who were to assemble at Clon-
tarf— multitudes, however, which were prevented
from coming to a scene which might have been one of
contest and bloodshed, but for the pacific interposition
of Mr. O'Connell, who proved to you on that occasion,
what he had said over and over again, that he would
obey the law, and that if they sent a single constable to
the meetings that would induce him to obey. I can-
not refrain from expressing my wonder that after that
proclamation had been issued—that after your object
had been obtained, that of the prevention of the monster
meetings—l cannot but wonder that 'you did not rest
there. I do not see what further purpose you had
to attain, for the meetings of the Repeal Asso-
ciation were:held in comparative obscurity. If you
succeeded in your object in suppressing these meetings,
why did you institute these prosecutions? I should
rather ask you, why did you not prosecute—not for
conspiracy, but for holding unlawful assemblages, and
for seditious language—for seditious publications for a
period of nine months before?—(Cheers.) The procla-
mation stated that at several meetings language
of a seditious and inflammatory nature had been ad-
dressed to persons there assembled, calculated and in-
tended to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds
of her Majesty's subjects, and to bring into contempt
and hatred the Government and institutions of the
country, &c. Now, does not the question at once pre
sent itself, that if that seditious language was employed
for so long a period as nine months, why did you not
stop it before?—(Cheers.) Why did you not prosecute
such articles as this which I hold in my hand, published
so far back as the Ist of April, 1843? You might have
proceeded by criminal information or by indictment.
You might have proceeded for the publication of this
poem in the Nation newspaper, which her Majesty's At..
torney-General, in addressing the jury, declared to be a
poem of a seditious character. The poem was entitled
the " Memory of the Dead," and the Right lion. Gen-
tleman, the Attorney-General, read it to the jury in the
most emphatic and solemn manner. I will read the
poem:—
Who fears to speak of Ninety-Eight ?
Who blushes at the name ?
When cowards mock the patriots' fate,
Who hangs his head for shame?
He's all a knave, or half a slave,
Who slights his country thus ;
But a true man, like you, man,
Will fill your glass with us.
We drink the memory of the brave,
The faithful and the few—
Some lie far off beyond the wave,
Somesleep in Ireland, too ;
All—all are gone—but still lives on
The fame of those who died ;
All true men, like you, men,
Remember them with pride.
Some on the shores of distant lands
Their weary hearts have laid,
And by the stranger's heedless hands
Their lonely graves were made ;
But, though their clay be far away
Beyond the Atlantic foam—
In true men, like you, men,
Their spirit's still at home.
The Attorney-General added, this poem was made in
order to excite the minds of the people, and that it was
a specimen of an entire volume of seditious matter,
which was calculated to excite discontent and disaffec-
tion. If this be a true description of the poem—it was
published on the Ist of April, and a series of com•
positions of the same class had been published weekly
for several months (Hear, hear) if this poem
had the tendency imputed to it by the Attorney-Gene-
ral, is it not a very natural question to ask, why were not
proceedings taken against the man who published that
poem, and the more especially if it had the evil influence
attributed to it by the Attorney-General ? My answer
to it is this—you had predetermined to prosecute for a
conspiracy—you had connived at these meetings,
and at the publication of poems of this class,
for you suffered these poems to appear day
after day in the newspapers. If you suffered those
meetings to be held, until, according to your bill of par•
ticulars, ninety-one of them had taken place—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear")—you allowed those newspapers
to proceed in their career—to run a race among them-
selver—until the editors competed with one another in
exciting the popular passions. And what, then, did you
do ? You did not prosecute the author of those poems
—you did not prosecute the man whose name was at-
tached to some of those compositions. Oh ! no. The
article, the " Duty of a Soldier," was published in the
Nation newspaper ; the name of the writer was added to
it—the writer was a priest in Waterford—the Rev.
John Power—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches)
—but you never prosecuted him. To this moment he
has escaped with perfect impunity—he was present at
the trial—he saw the men tried for the offence which he
himself had committed, and he returned to Waterford
perfectly safe and unmolested.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear" from the Opposition.) But you gave the article in
evidence against Daniel O'Connell, who had not written
it—(Hear, hear)—who had no cognizanbe of it, and no
communication whatever with the writer. You gave that
article in evidence against him— (Renewed and vehe-
ment cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition)—
you joined in the offence the editors of three
newspapers—you gave in evidence against O'Connell
every article published in those newspapers in 1843.
Was this a legitimate proceeding, ? (Loud cries of
" Bear, hear.") Were the observations of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Worcester justifiable in that re-
gard ? Has there been a precedent for such proceedings?
—(Hear, hear.) Has there been an instance of a man
indicted for conspiracy, and joined with the editors of
newspapers, and every article in those newspapers given
in evidence against him?--(Loud cries of " Hear, heat")
You might tell me that mode of proceeding should be
adopted if there is no other way of punishing those
editors ; but could not they have been prosecuted in the
ordinary manner? Could not these publications have
been stopped ? Could not these channels, through
which sedition was disseminated, have been closed up ?
Therefore we charge you with having—in the words of
the Attorney-General—with having stood by with hav-
ing laid in wait to entrap these men.—(Bear, hear.)
If you did not encourage, at least you connived very
strangely at these proceedings ; and then, when your
purpose was accomplished, you fell upon the man
whom you had inclosed within your toils.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") I now (said the Right Hon. Gentleman
in a solemn and marked tone of voice) come to a trans-
action which the Attorney-General for Ireland will per-
mit me to say has been—l don't like to use the phrase,
" wilful misrepresentation," but I wish to convey to this
House the knowledge of a transaction which must be
regarded as a most singular—most remarkable—most
conspicuous omission by the Attorney-General. The
House heard that Right Hon. Gentleman, last night,
speak of the conduct pursued against Mr. Bond Hughes.
lie is a reporter—No, a shorthand-writer, attached to
Mr. Gurney's office, aid I believe him to be a gentleman
of undoubted ability. He was sent to Ireland for
the purpose of reporting the Mullaghmast meeting.
The Attorney-General said that Mr. Hughes was se-
lected as an object of persecution, and.that the town was
placarded with denunciations of this Mr. Bond Hughes,
so that even those Roman Catholics who voted in favour
of the appropriation clause could not be more strongly
denounced than he was. The Attorney-General added
that this was the conduct pursued by Mr. O'Connell and
his associates with respect to Mr. Hughes, and that this
was one of the motives of the Government
for pressing O'Connell with so much keenness.
The Attorney-General further said, that he re-
gulated his proceedings by the manner in which
Mr. Hughes had been persecuted by the discredit-
able and immoral course pursued in reference to that
gentleman. The Attorney-General did not state, and I
' am surprised that he did not, that Mr. Hughes himself
acknowledged that he made two mistakes in his
affidavit—in the sworn informations upon which
a warrant was founded and issued against Mr. Barrett,
the proprietor of the Pilot newspaper, whom it was of the
utmost consequence to fasten and chain with Mr.
O'Connell.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") There was
no person but Barrett and the Irish prosecutors. In his
paper the article entitled the " Duty of a Soldier," was
published. Mr. Bond Hughes swore informations, in
which he stated that he saw Barrett twice at the meet-
ings in Dublin. He never did see him at any meeting
in Dublin,—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") He stated
what was untrue, but which I believe was not inten-
tionally false—(Hear, hear)—but which, as we knew
nothing of him, as we could not search his conscience,
as we had heard no explanation from the Crown—as we
had no explanation from himself until the trial, all we
knew was, that he had sworn to that which was not the
fact.(Renewed cries of " Hear, hear.") And then
an incident took place which has not been mentioned by
the Attorney-General, but which shall be mentioned in
this House, and which will, I think, produce upon men
of all parties no ordinary sensation. If I shall be con-
tradicted
ociimienn documents 11e$P.Wei tmhe
wnthch I cg liamabovli
about to make,
tle haveit.—
the
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) M. Hughes,
in his first examination, stated certain things. I entreat
the Attorney-General to interrupt me, if I deviate in a
single particular from the exact facts he ought to have
I auticipattd the cli4,ologio of to the Lbuse.—(Hearr,

hear.) Mr. Bond Hughes said he went to the house of
Judge Burton, to correct an affidavit. He lodged an-
other information—mind that—in which there was no
reference to Barrett. He went to Judge Bur-
ton's house for the purpose of correcting an
information there he saw Barrett. When he
saw him, he immediately said, " I did not see that
person at the meeting."—" I have sworn that which
was not a fact." lie saw:Mr. Wray and spoke to him—
Wray is the clerk to the Crown solicitor—told
him of the mistake he had made in his affidavit, and
requested him to correct it. What did Wray say—
what did be do—did he get the information corrected ?
No. There was no correction, and Mr. Bond Hughes,
when asked upon the trial what reply Wray made to
his request, said he did not remember what Wray
said. Bond Hughes saw Mr. Kemmis, and said to him
" I have made a mistake in my information—what
shall I do?—I stated that which was not true." What
did Wemmis do—was there a new information prepared?
—was the old statement amended ? No, A warrant
against Barrett had been granted, and that warrant was
not to be recalled.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from
the Opposition.) Lest you should think or imagine
for a moment that I am wantonly impeaching
the character of this immaculate Crown Solicitor—
(Laughter)—who charged us with tampering with
M'Grath, the Roman Catholic official—(Hear, hear)—
with tampering with a man who is at this moment in
the employment of the Government—(Hear, hear)—l
will read to you the statement of Mr. Bond Hughes,
which the Attorney-General, I suppose, thought did not
bear at all upon the subject—Bond Hughes, a perjurer !
Oh ! monstrous ! He denounced the persecution of this
individual, but he did not think it at all relevant to com-
municate it to the House.—(Hear, hear.) It was on his
cross-examination by Mr. M'Donough that the fact
came out; it did not appear in the direct examination.
Hughes swore to what happened at the Mullaghmast
meeting, and made out the case against O'Connell.
But not a word about the mistake made by
Hughes as to Barrett—one of the men whose
liberty was at stake. Not a syllable did the At-
torney-General ask Hughes about Barrett. The
Crown had no curiositylon the subject.—(Laughter,
and cries of" Hear, hear.") It would have been an act
of supererogation to have touched upon any unfortunate
misapprehension of Mr. Hughes ; but upon his cross-
examination by the subtle Mr. M'Donough the matter
was elicited. I will read from an indisputable authority
an extract from the cross-examination by Mr. M'Do-
nough. The paper is called in Dublin the Recorder of
Public Opinion:—

" Mr. M‘Donough—You have taken -various opportu-
nities of correcting your statements ? Mr. Hughes—l
have taken some.

" Mr. M'Donough—(Having seen the information)
You have not named Mr. Barrett. Was he there? Mr.
Hughes—l made a mistake about him on a former occa-
sion; he was not present. I took the earliest oppor-
tunity of correcting that mistake.
" Mr. M'Donough—Then I presume that he did not
speak there 1 Mr. Hughes—He did not.
" Mr. M'Donough—When you were under examina-
tion by the Solicitor-Genera!, he asked you nothing
about the dinner at the Rotunda? Mr. Hughes—He
asked me nothing about it.
"Mr. M'Donough—Was Barrett there? Mr. Hughes
—No; Barrett was not there. I mistook somebody else
for him.

" Mr. M'Donough—l think you stated you took the
earliest opportunity of correcting the mistake ? Mr.
Hughes—l did so when I was at the house of Judge
Burton.

" Mr. M‘Donough—You saw Barrett at the house of
Judge Burton, and perceived your mistake ? Mr.
Hughes—l did.
Mr. M‘Donough—Did you amend the mistake then
with regard to Barrett? Mr. Hughes—l did not, but I
did with reference to the Rev. Jr. Tierney. I dis-
covered my mistake with reference to Barrett, and men-
tioned it to Mr. Wray, the clerk to Kemmis.
" Mr. M‘Donough—What did Kemmis say? Mr.
Hughes—l can't recollect what Kemmis said.
" Mr. M‘Donough—When did you mention this to
Mr. Kemmis? Mr. Hughes—l have already said that I
mentioned it at Judge Burton's house."
And in answer to further questions, Mr. Hughes again said
that Mr. Kemmis made no observation when he told him
of the mistake. Mr. Kemmis made no observation—that
man Bond Hughes, whose character was so impeached,
and whose conscience was so disturbed, yet Kemmis
made no observation about it.—(Loud cries of "Hear,
hear," from the Opposition.) Bond Hughes, one of the
principal witnesses for the Crown, had made two
statements on his oath, which turned out to be untrue,
and yet Kemmis made no observation, and made no
attempt to remedy the mistake.—(Renewed cries of
" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) No, the mistake
was left uncorrected, the matter was left as it was, the
informations were known to be false—they were left so.
" Did you make a mistake in the Christian name
of the Rev. Mr. Tierne which you subsequently
corrected ? Mr. Bone Hughes—Yes. Was there
any correction made in the case of Mr. Bar-
rett ? Mr. Bond Hughes—No. I merely men-
tioned it."
Now the House must recollect that the Solici-
tor-General had been guilty of such a sin of omis-
sion as that which I mentioned just now—and in the
newt place the House will I think not be
astonished tkat the Attorney-General made that
accusation against Mr. O'Connell, that he had said
Mr. Bond Hughes mentioned the matter to the Crown-
Solicitor, to rescue himself from the result of the pro-
secution.---(Cheers.) Oh ! Sir, last night the Attorney-
General thought he had made out his case,—(Cheers
and laughter.) It was a matter of great joy and con-
gratulation, the manner in which he thought he had ex-
plained those points. But, Sir, I hope the House will
bear in mind that those gentlemen who charged me with
the corruption of M'Grath—who charged me with per-
suading I,l4Grath to act with treachery—the House will
remark that those gentlemen, so liberal upon this accu-
sation against us, and, to use a common phrase, so
anxious to turn the tables on us by calumny, have them-
selves, in these transactions, adopted the course which I
describe, and respecting which it is not now my intention
to speak--(Loud cheers.) The indictment had been sent
up, the bills had been found, and the names of the wit-
nesses on the back of the indictment were demanded by
the defendants. That was a most reasonable applica-
tion. Such an application in this country—this country,
united with Ireland (and I hope long to be united to
that country in equal rights and privileges); Ireland,
that country which Honourable Gentlemen opposite
professed to be united in a perfect equality, and
liberty—l say in England the invariable practice has
been to furnish to the traversers the names which were
on the back of the indictment. May I not ask the At-
torney-General for England to correct me if I beivrong?
custom to
(The Attorney-General intimated that he was correct.)
I am borne out by high authorit then, in saying that
in this country, it is the invariable
furnish
the accused party with the names of the witnesses on the
back of the indictment. In Ireland, where of course, there
was a perfect equality—(The
Right Honourable Gen-
tleman here spoke in a tone of bitter irony)--the
tra-
versers applied to be furnished with a list of
those names, and they were met by a
peremptory
refusal. Was this what is called assimilating the
administration of the law between the two countries ?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very willing to talk of
unanimity when it suits their purpose. The Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies has said, again and again,
that the judges were perfectly unanimous on every point
connected with the trials. But I assert that it is only
when unanimity serves your purpose that you rely on it,
but when a dissentient opinion was expressed--
Lord STANLEY—When?
Mr. SHEIL—When Mr. Justice Perrin pronounced
his opinion that the traversers were entitled to be fur-
nished with the names of the witnesses. Oh, of course
there was no notice taken of their dissentience, but how
loudly was the unanimity of the judges blazoned forth
when there was a concurrence of opinion on the part of
the other judges with the Chief Justice, when he ex •
plained his view of the law as applicable to the case ?
(Cheers.) I will ask the House if it does not think
that when, from the harmony of the bench,
Right Hon.
and Hon. Gentlemen and Noble Lords opposite,
deduced consequences so available to their
particular course of policy and prejudices, that
bench, an inference equally unfavourable to t
where dissentience of opinion prevailed on
course of policy and prejudice in those trials, is not to be
drawn? As I stated before, Mr. Justice Perrin their
de-
clared that it was a matter of right to allow the tra-
versers to have the list of the witnesses ; and Mr. Jus-
tice Burton, an Englishman, with some remnant left
of those characteristics by which his countrymen were
distinguished, said, although it could not be required as
a matter of right, yet it would be injudicious to refuse
it. I tell the Attorney-General, who went into all that
part of the ease, with respect to the right of the tra-
versers to the names of the witnesses, he should have
mentioned the opinions of Justice Burton, Justice Perrin,
and Mr. Whiteside, the eloquent counsel for Mr.
O'Connell—(Loud and continued cheering)—and then
let the House remember that an application which would
have been granted in this country had been denied in
Ireland, notwithstanding the strong opinions mentioned by
the learned and highminded Judge Burton, the decision
of Mr. Justice Perrin, and the strong arguments of Mr.
Whiteside.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) I admit that the
General had allowed the trial to be postponed,
but it was proved that it was necessary to procure evi-
dence on the part of the Crown ; and the next was,
that there were but twenty-five Catholics on the panel,
when it was known that many more ought to have been
on the special jury list. But what I deny is the asser-
tion made by one Hon. Gentleman that this was the
fault of the Court, for Judge Burton expressed his asto-
nishment that only twenty-five Catholics were upon the
jury list, and when this surprise was expressed the
Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, having the case
before him, did consent to postpone the trial with the
view as he alleged, to allow time to the traversers to
prepare the necessary evidence for their defence. But
I ask if the Attorney-General had refused this applica-
tion for postponement, and insisted on the traversers
going immediately to trial, and that upon a panel which
was imperfect, and which I say fearlessly, and distinctly
the Recorder himself declared to be imperfect--
Mr. SHAW (the Recorder of Dublin)—lt was
imperfect.
r. S
oHr
thel L—Yes,
list, and I shall begin by declaringes, it was imperfect. I now come to a
revision
that it is my firm and sincere conviction that to the Re-
corder of the City of Dublin there was to be attached
not the slightest moral blame for any one of the transac-
tions with respect to those lists, and I believe that he
would prefer that his right hand should wither rather
than employ it in an unfair way in those transac-
tions. But while I make this statement, in which I feel
assured every one who knows the Right Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman will concur, he will
forgive pap if I city that, although his judicial
and his finisteriiil -ottes not Bore Ptil:roi,
still I think it was his paramount duty to have remained
in Dublin—it was his duty to have been present when
the hook coutaiuing the jury list was being made up. He