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

suN, LoNDoN, IuEsDAY MORN LNG, JULY 16 1644,

be made the subject of a separate Bill. If they were
only to apply them to Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds,
and the metropolis, hP wanted to know what they were
to do with Sheffield, Newcastle, and other larger towns.
The people of Leeds had sent a petition against these
clauses, and they complained that if any asylum should
be established in that town, all the poor in the
neighbourhood of Huddersfield and Halifax would be
drawn there.

Sir C. NAPIER thought they ought not to ,proceed
with this Bill in the absence of every Cabinet Minister
(Sir James Graham had.lift the House). He also com-
plained that many cases of casual distress were
.not
provided for by this clause..
Mr. M. SUTTON said that the 58th clause applied to
other cases of casual distress. ,

. Sir C. NAPIER said, that as no Cabinet Minister
was present, he should more that the Chairman do re-
port pro7ress.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought the Chairman need not
report progress. He would, however, move that this
clause be postponed.
Sir C. NAPIER then withdrew his motion that the
Chairman do report progress.
Mr. B. DENISON trusted the Committee would do
all in their power to pass-the present measure, as every
elle of its provisions was calculated to alleviate the con-
dition of the houseless and destitute poor.
Mr. M. SUTTON said that if any great principle in-
volved in the clause was cbjected to, he would not ask
the House to go on with it in the absence of his Right
Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department,
but the clause had been discussed the whole morning,
and he could see, therefore, no reason why it should be
postponed.
Mr. WILLIAMS trusted that his Hon. Friend the
Member for Finsbury would not persevere in his motion
for the postponement of the clause. He thought the
clause had been sufficiently discussed.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE seeing one of her Majesty's
Cabinet Ministers in the House (Lord G. Somerset,
having shortly before taken his seat on the Treasury
benches), would not persevere in his motion for the
postponement of the clause, but he should certainly give
it his most decided opposition.
After some observations from Captain Pechell, Mr.
M. Sutton, Mr. T. Duncombe, and Mr. H. Hinde,
strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the Committee
divided, when there appeared—

For the clause B3
Against it
Majority for the clause —77
On the next clause being proposed,
Sir C. NAPIER moved that the Chairman do re-
port progress.
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON hoped the House would
not agree to the motion.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBe, said the clause involved a new
principle, and one of great importance. He objected to
the power given to the Commissioners to fix the annual
value which was to give a vote to the rate-payer. This
power had never been given to the Commissioners, and
he hoped it never would be. If the postponement of,
the clause was not consented to, he should move the
omission of the words giving that power.
Mr. IVAKLEY entreated the Hon. Gentleman to
postpone the clause. The clause was one that could not be
discussel in the absence of the Right Hon. Baronet, who
had charge of the Bill.
Mr. FERRAND called the attention of the Govern-
ment to the power given by the clause to the overseers of
the poor to appoint the district board that was to manage
the schools of the poor.
Mr. M. SUTTON could not consent to the postpone-
ment of the clause. The power given to the Commis-
sioners was the same as that given them by the 38th sec.
of the New Poor-law Act.

Mr. HAWES thought that the clause ought not to be
discussed in the absence of any Member of the Govern-
ment who would be able to afford the House any ex-
planation.
Mr. B. COCHR ANE said that this showed how little was
known of the new Poor-law. Here was a power possessed
by the Commissioners which few were aware of. He
thought that the power of the Commissioners ought to
be curtailed, and not increased.
Captain FITZROY thought that the conduct adopted
by lion. Gentlemen opposite, and by some on his side,
was such as to afford any Government little inducement
to bring forward a Bill to mitigate the operation of the
new law. He thought the opposition to the Bill was an
unfair one. He was as much opposed to the new Poor-
law as any one, and as such he was justified in not op-.
posing a Bill which was a mitigation of that 'law
He thought that the, conduct evinced with regard to this
measure showed who were the real friends of the poor.
It was not enough to come down to the House like the
Noble Lord the Member for Newark, to make flashy
speeches, in order that they might appear in .the news-
papers. But the mask was now taken off those who
called themselves the friends of the poor.—(" Oh, oh,"
and " Hear, hear.")
Sir C. NAPIER said he did not know whether he
was included amongst those who wished to stop the Bill.
He had no wish to stop it, but it was no wonder that the
Bill should be delayed when, on the last evening, it was
under discussion, a clause was for four or five hours
under consideration, which, according to the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, was" not applicable to the rural districts,
and which the metropolitan districts did not want.—
. .

(Hear, hear.) Why should such a clause be introduced
into the Bill? He hoped this discussion would induce
the Government to pay more attention to the Bills they
introduced. They were now on the 24th line of the
present clause, which he thought was a very improper
one. He hoped they would not pass it. He
considered it gave the Commissioners too much power,
and therefore he should oppose that part of it.
After a desultory conversation,
Mr. M. SUTTON moved that the Chairman do report
progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday
next, at Twelve o'clock.
The House then adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House resumed its sitting at Five o'clock.
The London and Croydon Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Gateshead,
complaining of the opening of letters by the Post-office
authorities.
Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from certain
parties in the eastern division of Surrey, complaining of
the contradictory decisions of revising barristers.
Messengers from the Lords brought down several
Bills, and also asked leave for Lord Palmerston to be
examined before the Postage Committee of the Upper
House, which was agreed to.
NOTICES OF MOTION—MR. WCDEHOUSE
AND MR. WAKLEY.
Mr. WODEHOUSE said he had a notice of motion
to give ; but before he did so he hoped the House would
allow him to say a few words in reference to what fell
from him on Saturday last. It had been intimated to
him that the explanation which he had given on that
occasion to the Bon. Member fur Finsbury had not been
satisfactory, and he had, therefore, no hesitation in
frankly and explicitly saying, that when he made the
allusion he referred to, he had acted under an erroneous
impression with respect to the trial. The Honour-
able Gentleman, it now appeared to him, from the
explanation which he had given, had a verdict
distinctly in his favour—that everything which occurred
afterwards was also clearly in his favour, and, there-
fore, he (Mr. Wodehouse) feeling that he had done
the Honourable Member for Finsbury an injury, felt
it his bounden duty to make himself the instrument
of reparation.—(Loud cheers.) He felt this to be
a duty which he owed, not only to the Honourable
Member himself, but to all connected with him
—(Cheers)—not only to his relations in private
life, but to his connexions and his friends in
public life, did he feel it his duty to make this ex-
planation. He (Mr. Wodehouse) hoped he would
be permitted not to go any further into the matter, but
at once to tender his apology to the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, and his thanks to the House for allowing him
the opportunity of doing so.—(Loud cheers.) He now
begged to give notice, that at an early period of
the next session he should move an address to her Ma-
jesty, prayink she would be graciously pleased to appoint
a Commission of Inquiry, with a view to restoring the
standard of money on which it had been placed by the
advice of Sir Isaac Newton.—(Laughter.)
The SPEAKER having read the notice of motion
from the Chair,
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose and said, in reference to
whz.t had fallen from an Honourable Member on a
personal matter, he thought, after the insinuation
which had been made, and after the full and ex-
plicit expression of regret fur that insinuation—an
expression which he (Sir Robert Peel) believed to be
sincere, and which he was sure must be sufficient for
an honourable and innocent mind—(Cheers)— the
Honourable Member for Finsbury might retire from the
House that night, with the understanding that complete
reparation had been made to his feelings, and that he
could carry his head as erect in public as any man
breathing.—(Great cheering from all parts of the
House.) And he was sure that he (Sir R. Peel) was
only expressing the unanimous feeling of that House, in
moving that they should put on record this declaration of
their opinion.—(Continued and general cheering.)
Mr. WAKLEY rose (evidently under very subdued
feelings) and said, it was impossible for him to refrain
from expressing his gratitude to the Right Hon. Baronet
for what had fallen from him, and he must also express

his grateful acknowledgments to the House for the man-
ner in which they had protected him in this most
painful affair.—(Loud cheering.) At the same time
he must say that he received the expressions of
the Honourable Member opposite (Mr. Wodehouse)
in the same spirit in which they were offered, as a frank
and honest expression of regret for what had occurred.
—(Loud cheers.) That reparation he felt ought to be
satisfactory, not only to himself, but to every member of
his family; and he had a particular motive for making
this declaration.—(Loud and general cheering.)

Here the matter dropped.
HORSE-RACING AND GAMBLING.
Mr. CHRISTIE said that after the observations which
had been made elsewhere, he thought the House would
not refuse him an opportunity of making an explana-
tion. It had been complained in another House that he
statel there was presumptive proof that an improper use
had been made of the evidence delivered before the
House of Lords. He had no intention of accusing the
Noble Duke who presided over the Committee of the
House of Lords of conspiracy.—(Hear.)
Lord A. LENNOX hoped the House would indulge
him for one moment. He only had to say that he
thought gentlemen—he begged pardon, he meant
to say " Honourable Members "—ought rather to in-
quire into the facts of the cases which they brought be-
fore the House.—(Cheers.)
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

Mr. lIUME wished to ask a question of the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) respecting the law for
abolishing imprisonment for debt. He found that
within the last twelye years upwards of 12,000 p,era.cas

had been imprisoncl for debt, r otwithstanding the Bills
that had been brow/ht in professedly for the purpose
of abolishing the inprisonment.
Sir J. GRAIIA:t was understood to say, that he did
not consider the Bils broufght before Parliament to have
any other object thin the release of debtors against whom
fraud could not be dleiyed.
RUSSIA.
In answer to a qiestion from Mr. CHRISTIE,
Sir R. PEEL said that there was no correspondence
between Russia and this country which he could lay be-
fore the House.

Mr. "%YAWN wisted to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the President (f the Board of Trade, whether her
Majesty's Governttent have taken, or intend to take,
any measures at Lb. Court of Russia, to get the vessels
of this country Oat three years old) exempt from
navigation dues in Russian ports, and to be placed upon
an equal footing it that respect with vessels built in
Russia, and belonging to Russian subjects.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that no such attempt had
been made ; nor WAS he aware that any was in contem-
plation. Russia hzd the privilege in consequence of the
advantages conrerrd by the treaty.
Lord PALMERSTON wished to know what were the
advantages which Russia granted to England under the
treaty as an equiialent to which English vessels were
snbjeet to a disaCvantage as compared with those of
Russia.

Mr. GLADSTONE—The advantage of having the
ships of England icceived on the footing of privilege in
the Russian port; from whatever quarter of the globe
they might come.
On the motion that the orders of the day be read,
Mr. CHRISTIE rose and said he had understood the
Noble Lord opposite to say that he should have pursued
a course more consistent with the character of a gentle-
man and an honourable man.
Lord A. LENNOX said he did not know what were
the exact words which he had used, but he presumed
that they were not unparliamentary, or else he would
have come under the notice of the Speaker. lie was not
in the habit of making improper imputations upon any
Member of that House, bilt he trusted the House would
enter somewhat into his feelings when he thought that
a noble and dear relative of his had been grossly maligned
by an Hon. Member.--(Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said that if he had understood the
Noble Lord to have made any imputation on the per-
sonal honour of the Hon. and Learned Members he would
have called upon him to retract it at the time. But he
now thought that the conversation was irregular as there
wns inn qnostion before the House. Hon. Members
would do well if they would confine t e r ettentien to
the subject-matters under the consideration of the House,
and not allude to previous debates.—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.")
Mr. DUNCOMBE said, as his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Weymouth had retracted the
offensive expressions he had used in reference to the re-
lation of the Noble Lord, he thought the Noble Lord
should likewise retract the expression " grossly ma-
ligned," which he had just repeated.—(Hear, hear.)
Surely that was not a Parliamentary expression.—(Hear.)
Lord ARTHUR LENNOX thought his explanation
had been satisfactory to the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber. He thought he had cast imputations of an improper
nature on his noble relative the Duke of Richmond, and
on that occasion had he supposed made use of some ex-
pressions which it appeared the Hon. Member did not
like.—(Loud cries of " Order.",
After a pause,
Lord A. LENNOX again rose and said, Sir, I will
put an end to this discussion, which I know it is wrong
to proceed with. If I have said anything personally
offensive to the Hon. Member, I beg leave to retract it.
—(Laughter and cheers.)
THE IRISH TRIALS.
The Orders of the Day ►were then read, and severally
postponed, and
Mr. WYSE rose to bring forward the motion of which
he had given notice on this subject. He first presented
a large number of petitions from several places in Ire-
land, praying for inquiry. He had also another petition
to which he begged to draw the attention of the House.
It was from a number'of noblemen and gentlemen deeply
interested in the tranquillity and prosperity of Ireland,
complaining in strong language of the state of that
country—of the discontent that universally prevailed
throughout it, arising from the bad administration of the
law—of the inferior position in which the nation was
kept—of the inadequate representation of the people—of
the existence of the Church Establishment, and stating
the feeling that universally existed, that Ireland
had not her fair share of the legislation of
the United Empire.—(Hear.) (The Hon. Member
read some of the signatures to the petition, which in-
cluded the names of the Duke of Leinster, the Marquis
of Kildare, Lord Rossmore, and a large number of Irish
noblemen.) In submitting to the consideration of the
House the motion of which he had given notice a con-
siderable time back, he begged to state that he came for-
ward on no insufficient grounds, and at no improper
period, while the subject was one which he believed to
every part of the empire was of the greatest importance.
He did not come forward without sufficient grounds, for
he presented to the House on the 21st of March, a peti-
tion signed by no less than 750,000 of the inhabitants of
Ireland, calling for immediate inquiry into the state of
Ireland. Added to that petition, he had presented an-
other, signed by 26,000 persons, reiterating the same
prayer. Other petitions had been presented, signed by
49,000 persons, forming in the whole a large aggre-
gate of the Irish people, all praying for
inquiry. To these petitions had been added the one
presented by the solicitors retained for the traversers,
and that of the Corporation of Dublin, each demanding
the same inquiry. In opposition to these petitions, there
had only been laid on the table the one petition of Mr.
Magrath, and, after a careful comparison of that petition
with that of the traversers, it appeared to him, so far
from modifying the statements of their petition, that it
had confirmed his opinion of its authenticity. When to
these was added the petition just laid on the table of the
House, one not coming from men connected with the Re-
peal Association, but from men, many of whom were
directly opposed to repeal—men who, from their pro-
perty, long acquaintance with Ireland, and high rank, were
fair representatives of the aristocratic opinions of that
country, and when they all concurred in saying
that the country was in it state of division—that
discord prevailed in it, and that these were no hopes
of relief from that state, except by complying
with the demands of justice, he thought be had some
claims on the attention of the House. He believed that
he did not come forward at an improper period. During
the whole time the subject was pending in the law courts
in Ireland he had refrained from bringing it forward,
and since that time he had been debarred from doing so

in consequence of the long pr eiod that elapsed between
his moving for certain papers and their being laid on the
table. The question was still pending before another
House, and he should not now have interposed, but that
he trusted he should be able to show he was dealing
with quite a distinct subject. Let it not be said, there-
fore, that he came forward on insufficient grounds, or at
an improper period. As to the subject itself, surely
there was never one which demanded more earnest
attention from her Majesty's Government. He had not
the advantage of legal knowledge, and least of all could
he claim their attention after the eminent men who had
discussed and exhausted the subject. But this he would
say, that he was an Irish Catholic—the representative of an
Irish Catholic constituency—and he could not but feel,
with almost all his countrymen, that Mr. O'Connell was
an eminent man in the age in which they lived. He
could not but feel that to his exertions millions of his
fellow-countrymen owed the throwing open the gates
of the Constitution, and that he himself had the power
of addressing them in that place. He also remembered
that Mr. O'Connell, though a Catholic, had no Catholic
on his jury. He remembered, as an Irishman, he had
been adjudged by a tribunal to a sentence which they
had heard in that House from an English jury and
English judges he would not have been exposed ; and
these questions, however closely they were now con-
fined to Ireland, might soon be extended to themselves.
The worst evils were those which crept in under the
sanction of justice; the worst -and most dangerous re-
sults were those which were consigned to the
statute book, by the decision of judicial men. They
might not be able, perhaps, openly to assail the Consti-
tution, but they might undermine it, and this undermin-
ing was what was most to be apprehended. Give him a
people who had free discussion, and who lived under the
aegis of equal laws, and he cared not what Ministry er
what Legislature they might create—that people would
sooner or later vindicate themselves in the eye of the
world. He did not mean to discuss the question in con-
nection with its legal difficulties. He should limit him-
self to the facts of the case. He asked for no condem-
nation or censure of the Government. He should not
discuss points of law, nor enter into the subject in con-
nection with the matter before the House of
Lords. The object of the Government for many
years in Ireland had been to neutralise the ques-
tion of repeal. It was considered a matter of
importance in Ireland either to exorcise the question
of repeal from the country, or to crush it, to expel it,
either gently or by main force. The opinions on repeal
were various—some thought it a magnificent impossi-
bility—many argued that it would be a good thing if it
could be carried. Others, not only considered it could
not be carried, but that if carried it would be a danger-
ous thing for Ireland. Other:: were opposed to repeal on
the grounds that by it Ireland would be divided from
her powerful sister and exposed to all the jealousies and
discussions of a rival State. Others considered it would
be contrary to the fundamental laws of the Constitution.
Each of these parties were necessarily guided by their se-
veral opinions in their attempt to get rid of this question.
If proper means had been adopted for the redress of
these grievances, and good measures had been brought
forward, the repeal agitation would have totally disap-
peared. But the other party were placed in the posi-
tion of those who must either completely crush repeal
by violent means, or resort to fraud where they could
not use force. To crush repeal by violent means was
out of the question. A Coercion Bill, if passed into a
law, would only adjourn and not extinguish the ques-
tion of repeal. The Government thougt it advisable
to trust to the means at their disposal for crushing re-
peal. During the last session the question of repeal was
allowed to make progress. They were all familiar with
the meetings that took place, and the frequent appeals
made to the Government in that House, on the subject ;
and it appeared, from subsequent evidence, that even
then the Government were not inattentive to the course
of events. There was the obvious course open
to them of attacking the meeting which Mr.
O'Connell had announced—the general convention
to be held in Dublin for the purpose of devising a plan
of renewed action. It was thought that the Govern-
ment would wait until that assembly had been convened,
and had they done so, there would have been les
ground of complaint, inasmuch as it would obviously
have been a direct violation of the Act against con-
ventions. The session, however, had not long clo,ed
when the Government anticipated the meeting to be
held in November, by attacking the first meeting, which
was to Ve held near Dublin, namely, the meeting at
Clontarf, and not content with, that, immediately pro-

ceeded to engage in the pr.:mention which now formed
the subject of immediate inquiry.
.Whether the Go•
cerement on that occasion were too late or too soon—
whether they acted with hesitation or with prudence—
whether it were a wise course to risk at so late a period
a collision with an excited people, or whether it would
not have been amply sufficient for their purpose to have
instituted the p:osecution without taking any notice of
the ineeCng, it was not his intention at present to discuss.
The act was sudden and unforeseen on the part of the Go-
vernment, though it arose out of expressions which
could not reasonably be viewed with apprehension when
they considered the views of him from whom they fell.
It did appear strange that this meeting, the last of the
whole series of repeal meetings, should be that one which
the Government had determined upon putting down. It
now appeared that there had been all along a serious
intention on the part of the Government to indict for a
conspiracy—that they had watched every occirrence,
and by connivance and apparent tranquillity, gave con-
fidence to those who were carrying on what was called
a conspiracy, to produce still graver acts, for which they
might be afterwards called up for punishment.—(Hear,
hear.) But, he believed there was something deeper
still than what he had mentioned. His impression
was that th.,re was a much more alarming conspiracy
existing in the minds of the Government, who thought,
or affected to think, that it was not merely a combina-
tion for the purpose of discussing repeal, but that there
was a conspiracy actually going on between certain
members of the Repeal Association and the Govern-
ment of America. A person had been put in communica-
tion with America—one who was to give information to
the Government that treasonable correspondence had
been carried on between Mr. Steele, on the one hand,
and the son of President Tyler, on the other. That
impression had been imprinted on the minds of the
people by the language which the Attorney-General
used at the commencement of the trials. The bill
of indictment had been scarcely placed before the
Court when the Attorney-General announced that there
would be a second bill of indictment, and in doing so
used language which was well deserving of the attention
of the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
stated, on the Bth of November, when the first bill was
presented to the grand jury, that he " would undertake
to establish as wicked and vile a conspiracy as ever
disgraced this country." lie (Mr. Wyse) did not know
whether that language was applicable to the first or to the
second bill. With regard to the mode in which that trial
was conducted he had a right to record his opinion of
the impression:made on his mind by it, and on the minds
of the great body of the people of Ireland. Through all
the proceedings of that trial, sweeping aside the techni-
calities of the law altogether, there was an overwhelm-
ing conviction impressed on him, that upon the conduct
of that trial there was not a disposition to give the ac-
cused every fair advantage which they had a right to
demand,—(Hear, hear.) Take for instance the conduct
of the clerk of the Crown in the very beginning of the
proceedings—let them take the case of Mr. Bond
Hughes, when he made a mistake in swearing that Mr.
Barrett was present at the meeting which he afterwards
discovered he was not at, and which he (Mr. Hughes)
wished to correct when he saw Mr. Barrett at Judge
Burton's chambers.—(Hear, hear.) This was not a
question between man and man, but it was one involv-
ing the interests of a whole community.—(Hear, hear.)
There were several other instances where a similar dis-

position was evinced. There were demands made for
copies of the indictment—for the names of witnesses—
the refusal of which showed a narrow spirit, and a bitter
hostility to the traversers. The first claim by the
traversers was, as he said before, for the copy of the
indictment. Surely the spirit of British law was—if a
man were indicted, he should know the accusation
against him, and who were his accusers.—(llear, hear.)
The claim was not made in the spirit of idle curiosity,
but as a matter vital to the defence of the accused—

he had a right to know whether the indictment was ac-
cording to the statute, and how, according to the terms
and charges of the indictment he could best defend him-
self. He looked to the statute and found that certain
conditions were required. He now understood that the
reason leave of inspection was refused, was because the
Crown were desirous to press on the case, and
feared advantage might be taken and delay
might be interposed. Well, and if there were
delay, there might be delay and just delay.—(Hear.)
There was the delay of justice and the delay of in-
justice; and the accused had a right to that delay which
would enable him to prepare his defence. The tra-
verser's attorney applied for the caption; the caption,
too, was refused—the Crown said the accused had no
right to it, but the judges were not so clear upon the
point. But he would not dwell upon these minute but
painful grievances. lie would come at once to the
grand question of complaint—the whole ground of the
triumph of the Government on this occasion—the jury.
If all the other proceedings were dictated by a
spirit of the utmost fairness, and if the jury were
unequally, partially, unjustly, improperly selected, no
matter what might be the crime of the individual, the
trial was unfair.—(Hear, hear.) The tribunal was not
what a British subject had a right to expect. There
was an essential want—a want which vitiated the whole
proceedings, and which entitled the prisoner to say ho
had not had a fair trial. He (Mr. Woe) would under-
take to show them that tribunal was defective—most de-
fective—and, if he did so, he would call upon the British
House of Commons, as the protector of the Constitu-
tion and of the liberties of the people—as the pre-
server of the purity of trial by jury—the greatest
palladium of the British people—to inquire
into the facts and see who were the defaulters.

He would call upon them to free themselves from the
imputation of being participators in the injustice—to
listen to the people who cried out " Hear us." If they
would not do so, they would show more convincingly
by their own act than by any allegation of the Irish
people, that they were not disposed to do justice to
their fellow-subjects.—(Hear.) (The Hon. Gentleman
then alluded to two petitions which had been laid on the
table of that House; one from the attorney of the convicted,
and the other a counter petition. The Hon. Member
then went on to compare these two documents, and ad-
verted to the mode of getting up the jury list, which he
censured as most one-sided and unfair.) The proceedings
in the Recorders' Court for the revision of the jury list
more resembled a bitter election contest than
an equitable and solemn arrangement prepara-
tory to a great and important trial.—(Hear,
hear.) There were two Conservative election
agents for the Conservative party, who objected
to those persons put forward by the repealers, Messrs.
Walker and Jackson ; whilst the repealers made their
objections to those put forward on the other side. The
greatest possible acrimony and bad feeling was exhi-
bited, but the repealers had the greater cause, for they
were the accused. The greatest accuracy was desirable
in those proceedings, and it should have been secured.
Mr. Walker was not refused the opportunity of compar-
ing the lists. He was allowed to compare them with
Mr. M'Grath. (The Hon. Gentleman then read extracts
from the affidavit of Mr. M'Grath, in which the depo-
nent disclaimed that he was influenced by any improper
motive) He (Mr. Wyse) complained that the House of
Commons should allow such irregularities, if they de-
served no other name, to pass unnoticed.—(Cheers.)
There were good grounds for believing that, notwith-
standing the affidavit of Mr. M'Grath, fifty or sixty
names had been omitted. One of the persons whose
names were omitted, wrote to the Recorder requesting
that his name should be inserted. To that letter he re-
ceived no answer. —(Hear, hear.) (The Hon. Member
then read the letter, and contended, from the statements,
that it was not fifteen or sixteen names omitted, but be-
tween fifty and sixty.) Mr. M'Grath admitted in his
affidavit that distinctions of qualification had been an-
nexed to the names of persons in an improper manner.
Surely they would not on the opposite side of the House
tell him that that was the way in which they them-
selves would wish to have their juries formed and their
trials conducted ?—(Hear, hear.) And if they would
not, after the prima facie case he had
,made out, he
did not think they would venture to say that inquiry
was uncalled for. For his own part he was by no means
satisfied that there had not been more interference with
the lists than that of which they were already cognizant.
He was entitled to think there were other grounds for
his motion than those even which had been stated, and
he might very fairly be permitted to demand the oppor-
tunity and the means for inquiry. Leaving out of the
question the influence that one-tenth might have had on
the whole panel—not heeding what chances that circum-
stance might have had in Mr. O'Connell's favour—there
was the question of still greater importance for the
public, and that was to convince them that he had had
a fair trial.—(Loud cries of Hear, hear.") It would
have been infinitely better to have had no trial at all ;
for if the people of Ireland were in such a state that
they could not afford to treat them with that impar-
tiality with which they treated Englishmen, better
would it have been to have let the evil go on.—
(Hear, hear.) And then let them reflect on the charge
which had been delivered by the judge. That
charge called to his mind the times of Charles the
Second, when: the judges extenuated evidence on the
one side, and exaggerated it on the other, just to suit
their own, or other people's purposes ; and when no
confidence was felt, or could bp felt, in the justice of
the legal tribunals of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
He would not go into any further question of the trial
itself ; he was precluded by the terms of his motion
from doing so ; but he would just ask the Minister
what he had gained by it ?—(Hear, hear.) What was
the result ?—what the profit to the Minister ?—what
the profit to the country ?—(Hear, hear.) Was the
Minister now more satisfied with the state of Ireland
than when he first took the reins of Government ?
(Hear, hear.) The consequence of their conduct had
been this, that they driven even moderate men into
immoderate courses. Every one was rapidly becoming
either on the one hand a repealer, or upon the other a
stern determined supporter of the Government. 'There
were no neutral men—none of that moderate, middle
class, so healthy and useful in a community.—(Hear,
hear.) But was the repeal question done for ? Had it
exploded ? No ? There they stood in dogged obstinacy
to the Government—in the worst position subjects could
possibly be in—sullenly writhing under feelings of
animosity and of vengeance.—(Hear, hear.) They
looked upon the laws with more of suspicion, with more
of doubt, with more of distrust and of dislike than ever.
—(Hear, hear.) But had the Government obtained its
immediate object ? No, they had not. They said they
would put down the receipt of money from the public,
and the publication of a certain class of articles in the
newspapers, but had they done so ? Why, there was
just the same organisation as ever—just the same rami-
fications throughout the whole body of the Irish people
—just the same sentiments, seditious or not as they might
choose to call them, published in the newspapers.
and more money than ever collected for the repeal
rent.—(Hear, hear.) They had seen the declarations of
the greater portion of the mayors and corporations of the
various liberal municipalitFes of Ireland—and what lan-
guage did they use to the Government ? Again—did
they think they had suppressed Mr. O'Connell or the
Repeal Association ?—(Hear, hear.) They had done
neither, as those addresses to him from within the em-
pire, and from without the empire, pretty plainly proved.

Did the Ministers never think how they, in fact, were
upholding Mr. O'Connell ? That man did not attain
his high position by his own talents alone, but by the
wrongs, the folly, and the injustice of the Government
towards his country.--(Hear, hear.) He created not the
revolution, but. the revolution created him.—(Hear, hear.)
Though he (Mr. Wise) wished to continue to form an
integral part of this country, he still felt that he was
an Irishman, and it was from respecting their several
nationalities that England must hope to keep her whole
people in harmony and concord. It was by allowing
and consecrating this feeling of nationality—by nou-
rishing Irish feeling, and respecting Irish sentiment,
that England must expect to keep her faithful and true.
—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") They must convince
the people of Ireland by every means that they could,
that they were disposed to make reparation and atone-
ment for the past, by giving to the Irish equal rights,
and equal independence with the English for the future._
Until they were-thoroughly convinced that there was to

be a real union—not a parchment union—but a union
of rights, civil and religious—not as America was with
England, not as Belgium was with Holland, but
as Scotland was with England—until this. was
shown to be the moving principle, there could be noi• con-
fidence, and, therefore, no real or lasting peace.—(Hear,
hear.) It was not enough for the Minister to tell the
House he would not call for coercion Bills—that he did
not desire to rule by military law—but they must tell
Ireland by their acts as well as by their words, that Eng-
land had made mistakes in her conduct, and that she was

willing to repair them—that she was anxious to begin a
new system—and that as wrongs could not produce any-
thing but resistance, they would now try if kindness and
justice could not lay the foundation of a solid and lasting
union between the two countries, contributing alike to
the peace and prosperity of both.—(Cheers.) The Right
lion. Gentleman concluded by moving for " A Select
Committee to inquire, in accordance with the prayer of
the petition presented 17th June, into the facts connected
with the format* of the Special Jury, in the case of
the Queen at thq prosecution of the Attorney-General v.
Daniel O'Connell and others."

The motion was seconded by an. HON. GENTLEMAN,
whose name we could not learn.

Lord ELIOT said, that upon hearing the first part of
the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, he fancied that he
was under a delusion, and that instead of being in the
House of Commons on the 15th July, he was there in
February last, discussing the question of the State trials.
At that time the whole question was fully discussed by
her Majesty's Ministers, and it was, therefore, not be-
coming at the present moment to enter into those sub-
jects again, He would confine himself to the points
brought before the House by the Right Hon. Gentleman.
It appeared to him that the House could not accede to
the proposition made by the Right Hon. Gentleman,
unless it could be clearly shown that there was

a fraudulent tampering with the jury list for
the purpose of producing prejudice to the defendants;
and supposing even that there was so, the question

..
then was, whether the inquiry now proposed would tend
to any useful result. He did not think that the Right
Hon, Gentleman had established any of the propositions
he had put forward, nor had he established the assertion
that he had made, that Mr. M'Grath was biassed in the

course he had pursued. Mr. M•Grath could have had no
bias whatever against the traversers. He was not a
Protestant, because he had declared upon his affidavit
that he was a Roman Catholic. That gentle-

man had appended his name to a petition
to that House, and he did not think that it
could be said of him that he would state on peti-

tion as true that which he would not state was so upon
affidavit. The question in his opinion was simply this,
was there any wilful or fraudulent intention on the part
of any individual concerned in the formation of the jury ?
He did not find it stated by the attorneys for the tra-
versers that they suspected any individuals. They
merely stated that they believed that some fraud had been
practised. But that did not attach to any of the law officers
of the Crown. It did not , attach to Mr. Kernmis, and
the clerk of the peace could not be charged with it; and
Messrs. Archer and Dickinson denied that anything of
that sort had taken place in their office. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had made insinuations that appeared
to him totally unfounded. What was the ,gravamen of
the charge? Why, that no Roman Catholics were on
the jury. The Right Hon. Gentleman had then stated
that there were some discrepancies between the state-
ments of Mr. M'Grath and Mr. Mahoney. *He believed
it would be found that such was not the case, when
the matter was properly looked into. Then the
Right Honourable Gentleman had insinuated that
he could not see why Messrs. Walker and
Jackson had been employed in the matter.
Perhaps it was not known to him that many gentlemen
had had notices given them, that if their names were
proposed they would be objected to. • Under such
circumstances, he would ask whether it was not natural
that they should employ professional, men to see that
their names were not improperly struck out? Such was
the state of things previous to the trial. The Recorder
presided at the Registration Court, and he directed cer-
tain marks to be made to the names of certain parties
as to their rank and so on, and it had :been clearly
shown that no partiality had been exercised by that
officer. The Right Hon. Gentleman had cast some
blame on the Recorder, for not performing, as he said,
the duty that was cast upon him. He was bound to be
present at the adjudication of the claims of
but nothing more. He had caused the list to be pre-
pared, and he was not bound to do mdre. Now, he
would put it to any thinking person, whether parties in
copying a list of a great number of names might not
commit some error? There could be no doubt that
such a circumstance might take place. Ouch an error
would not be sufficient to vitiate certain proceedings. It
must be shown that there was some wilful tampering

in the getting up of the jury. Now the Right Hon.
Gentleman proposed to bring this matter before a Select
Committee of the House—a Committee, it must be re.
membered, that had not the power of exaMining upon
oath as to what had taken place. In 11:.s (Lord Eliot's)
opinion, the constitutional course would have been the
finding of a criminal information. Now :svkat was the
course that was pursued by his Right Hon. Friend, the
Attorney-General for Ireland ? The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite had said that his Right Hon. and
Learned Friend had applied for the postponement of
the trial, in order that the new jury-book might
come into operation. Now what was the fact?
Why his Right Honourable Friend, t seeine, that
in the old jury-list out of upwards of three seeing
names there were only twenty-five Catholics, at once
agreed to the postponement of the trial till the new
jury-list shonid come into operation. As to the com-
petency of the traversers to have a jury of the county
of Dublin, such a demand had not been made, and it
therefore could not now be complained of. The Right
Hon. Gentleman then complained of the partiality of the
jury. Why Mr. Fitzgibbon, one of the counsel for the
traversers, had admitted that there was not a single in-
dividual on the panel that would not give a fair and im-
partial verdict. He would now consider whether the
verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence. But:in
doing so he would not discuss the question of the law of
the case, but take it from the bench. The learned
judges had laid down what the law was, and the jury
had taken it from them ; and although it might be well
for learned counsel to endeavour to arraign that law,
he did not think that any of the traversers them-
selves would say that the charges laid in the in-
dictment were erroneous. Had not, he would ask,
large meetings been held? Had not paragraphs been
inserted in newspapers in Ireland under the sanction of
the traversers themselves? Then, if that were so, and
the law of conspiracy, as laid down by the judges was
correct, the jury had no other course to pursue than
that which they had adopted, whatever their professions
might be, whether Roman Catholics a Protestants.
Then with respect to the challenging of the array, if
there was any Just ground for complaining of the panel,
that was a question now for consideration in the House
of Lords, and it was not, therefore, proper
or becoming for the House to appoint a Com-
mittee for considering that question. He did
not believe that the appointment of a Committee
would lead to any beneficial result, while it might pro-
duce injurious consequences. If the Hon. Gentleman
believed that any fraud had been committed with re-
gard to the formation of the jury. list, the proper course
was for the parties to file an information against those
individuals. But he could not see that an inquiry at this
period of the session would be of any benefit. He should,
therefore, resist the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said he should not have risen
so early in the evening, but that he thought it desirable
he should reply to the observations of the Noble Lord.
He laboured under some difficulty on the present occa-
sion. It was hard for him to enter on the subject without
giving way to these feelings naturally excited by his
connection with the individual who, if there had been
fraud, or collusion, or oppression, had been the victim o
that fraud, that collusion, and of that oppression. Ile
should, however, endeavour to avoid personal feelings,
and he would commence by assuring them that it was
not because this was the 15th of July that they would
be able to avoid this question. It was only the people of
Ireland who were looking on this subject with attention.
It occupied a great space in the mind of the public out
of these realms, and he believed he did not over-estimate
it when he said it would occupy a considerable
space in the mind of posterity. The great difficulty
he felt on this subject was, where to begin.
But he must first notice the strange advice which the
Noble Lord gave to the parties who had suffered, not to
come to the House of Commons, as it could not examine
evidence on oath : but to file a criminal information to
be tried before Chief Justice Pennefather and the jury,
the malformation of which was complained of. It might
be quite satisfactory to the Noble Lord to have no in-
quiry, but if anything could tend to produce dissatisfuc
tion, it would be the refusal of inquiry on
the present occasion.—(Hear.) The first allegation
was that there were sixty-three names omitted from the
jury list ; but it was stated by Mr. M`Grath and the
Recorder that only twenty-four had been omitted. With
respect to these twenty-four, there were some curious
facts, not the least curious of which was the statement
of the Noble Lord—that 180 lists were formed for the
twenty-four parishes of Dublin. Now, as many of
these parishes were very poor ones, there could
not have been names in all these parishes fit
for all the classes of jurymen—(Hear, hear)—
and many of the lists therefore must have been blank
sheets of paper. With respect to the list of the parish
of St. Audeon's, it was a most unfortunate coincidence
that the majority of the lost names were those of Ca-
tholics, whose bias, if they had any at all, would have
been rather in favour of the traversers. There was
great cause for suspicion, but it seemed they
could not inquire into it, because it was the 15th of
July. The traversers, on their part, challenged inquiry,
especially into the cause of the omission of the names
How some names were placed on the list, and how others
were omitted which ought to have been on the same list,
he left it to the Noble Lord—he was going to say to the
Recorder, but the Recorder, it seemed, had left it :0
them—to explain. If there were any fairness they were
bound to clear this matter up. He might go further
than he had done, but he would merely ask the House