The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-01 00:00:00

BRITISH MAGAZINE.

A monthly register of religious and eccleAiastical
information ; drawn ;up succinctly, and adapted to
the tastes of clerical readers, for whom it is chiefly
designed. • In the present Number occur some judi-
cious suggestions respecting the " Religious -Treat-
ment of Lunatics."

SCULPTURE FOR THE NEW
.ROYAL EXCHANGE.
The pieces of sculpture which are being prepared to fill the
pediment of the new Royal Exchange arc now nearly com-
pleted. They are the work of Mr. Westmacott, at whose
residence we yesterday had the pleasure of inspecting them.
The subject the artist has chosen to illustrate for .this purpose
is exceedingly appropriate to the occasion. It consists of a
series of figures grouped together after the following manner :
—The centre, or highest portion of the pediment, is occupied
by a figure on a pedestal, representing Commerce, of ten feet
in height. She leans on a helm, and is surrounded by all the
emblems suitable to hereharacter—viz., the beehive, the com-
pass, the cornucopia, &c. On the steps on either side are placed
British merchants engaged in traffic with natives of every
clime—the Chinese, the Arab, the Negro, the Greek, the Indian,
the Armenianrand the Turk. These figures are between seven
and eight feet in height. The composition is terminated, as it at-
tenuates, on one side by marine furniture—such as anchors,
cables, and blocks, and on the other by different articles of
merchandise. In this composition the aim of the artist
seems to have been to embody in sculpture a modern
.subject
and the sentiments of our own age. In prosecuting a task
of no slight weight, he has apparently been deterred by none
of the difficulties which would naturally arise out of such an
undertaking, but has completed awork which, though doubt-
less not perfect, will, we apprehend, not disappoint the ex-
pectations of the inhabitants of the first commercial city in
Europe. It is cut in Portland stone, in a broad, vigorous,
and effective style.. The area of the pediment, 13 feet by 30,
will he exceedingly well filled, and the various figures are
connected together without breaks or gaps.
We understand that in a very short. space of time this
group will be elevated and fixed in the position which we.
hope it is destined to occupy for ages to come.

A FALL OF PORK AT DEVONPORT. Saturday
morning a building in the market of this town, which was
supported on pillars, and appropriated for hanging the car-
cases of pigs on the, cro'ss-bearns attached thereto, not being
able to sustain the weight of the dead pigs, in consequence.
of the rottenness of the timbers; fell down on a number of
persons who were .en iaged in business under the roof. The
utmost confusion ensued. When the parties were taken
from the ruins, it was discovered that a pigdealer from the
country had his leg and thigh brokenP and otherwise injured;
au industrious woman, a butcher's wife, had also a leg broken.
Four others were Severely hurt, and many slightly. had the
accident happened half an hour later, some serious disasters
would no doubt have been the result. The parties whose
bones were fractured Were taken to the infirmary at the
'workluitige, where e4-ery attention is' being paid'to them by
desire of M. E. St. Aubyn, the steward of the manor.

T, D 444

IRELAND.

THE STATE TRIALS
FOURTEENTH DAY.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTERS.)

DUBLIN, TUESDAY, JAIL 30
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

THE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS,

. .
At ten o'clock this morning the Judges stook their
seats on the bench.
Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers having an-
swered to their names, the jury were next called, and
two being absent, a delay of about five minutes took
place. When all were assembled,
Mr. FITZGIBBON, Q.C., rose and stated that in this
case it was his duty to address the jury on the part of
Dr. Gray, and from the course adopted by the Crown,
in putting the eight individuals together upon their trial,
it necessarily resulted that each of the traversers had
the privilege of making a separate defence ; but, from
the nature of the evidence, it was plain that as the charge
was for a joint offence, the defence must also be joint.
The accusation against the eight traversers was for un-
lawfully, maliciously, and criminally conspiring together,
and that seemed in its nature rather a simple charge,
for even a single act might con,titute the entire
F'offence, yet the Attorney-General had opened his case
with a speech which occupied eleven hours, and between
forty and fifty hours were spent in reading evidence, not
in examining witnesses. Was it fair to call upon the
jury to read over such a mass of matter to arrive at a
just conclusion upon a narrow issue? And who could he
safe—who could be defended ? What, was a man to .do
when a vast body of matter might be flung down without
explanation at the feet of a jury, in order that they
might arrive at any conclusion from such a variety of
premises? If Mr. Shell, conscious of his complete
abilities, felt a difficulty in approaching this chaos
of confusion, and was conscious of the magnitude of
the duty which he had to discharge, what must bC
his (Mr. Fitzgibbon's) feelings ? Not those. of emo-
tion, but of dismay. Eight gentlemen were now charged
with the crime of conspiracy—an offence the most
odious in every clime, and in every state of human
society the most detestable. Who was the first of those
eight gentlemen? A man pre-eminent in his profession
—pre-eminent for his talents and for his many great
virtues, and who, for a period of over forty years, was
the ornament of the bar. Who had he (Mr. Fitzgibbon)
next to defend ? The son of that father—a candidate
for success in the same profession, and just entering life,
being not more than twe:mty-eight years of age ; and a
third traverser, Dr. Gray, was also a member of another
high and honourable profession. His opinion was, that
the present prosecution was an unconstitutional, illegal,
and unfair attempt now, in the year 1844, to devise a
ministerial scourge for the purpose of lashing a free
people. The three gentlemen who were highest in point
of rank at the bar, and who were now pursuing the ob-
jects of the Government in this prosecution, he (Mr.
Fitzgibbon) could speak of as gentlemen, severally and
individually—" gentlemen," in the best and most fa-
vourable sense of the word, and " lawyers," also,
in the best sense .of that word. But when lie
thus alluded to those three individuals, he spoke
of them in ordinary matters, and in the ordi-
nary business of life. It had never before fallen to his
(Mr. Fitzgibbon's) lot to be concerned in, or to have
witnessed- in a Court of Justice, a State prosecution,
but it had been his duty to read many of them ; and it'
the three gentlemen acting for the Crown had fallen
from their moral dignity, they were only following the
example of. much greater men than any one of them:
He said this without disparagement to them, but they
had only followed the fate of Lord Coke, whose virtues
and whose dignity could not preserve him from acting
the part of a Government lawyer in a State prosecution,.
His name had gone down to posterity with a foul blotch
on it, and no friend of humanity could think of his at-
tack upon Sir Walter Raleigh without execrating the
tongue that delivered it under the circumstances.
The Attorney-General had, in his opening speech,
observed that the jury would take the law from the
Court, and so they would ; but the Court had not
the slightest jurisdiction in the world to direct them
upon the question of the guilt or the innocence of the
traversers. That was a puro question of fact, with
which the Judges had nothing to do. In the case of
Hatfield, who fired at the King, in the theatre, intend-
ing to kill him ; he was taken in the act, and yet the
Court had nothing to do with the intent of .the accused,
for that was for the jury alone. The Judges had not
even a right to express an opinion upon the subject of
the intent, because a jury could only act upon evidence
on oath. He (Mr. Fitzgibbon) did not agree with the
Attorney-General in the statement of the law as to what
constituted conspiracy. Perhaps it might be said that
Mr. Moore admitted the law to be as stated by the
Attorney-General ; but Mr. Moore stood here for the
Rev. Mr. Tierney, who had a peculiar case, for he never
attended more than two of the meetings, and therefore
there was no necessity for applying his mind to the law
of conspiracy. The‘jury had heard a term used very much
—" overt acts." '1 he term was applicable to only two
offences, that of treason and conspiracy; and treason was
a crime hat a man might be guilty of without doing any act
at all—for if one imagined the death of the Sovereign,
the forming the determination constituted the crime.
1 In that case an " overt act " would be an act from the
the doing of which the intention of killing the King was
manifested. When the Attorney-General proceeded to
state the overt acts charged against the traversers, he
followed him in the hope that he would stop and call
their attention to some one speech which could not have
been spoken unless it had been previously spoken by
more individuals than the one who spoke it—that he
would rely upon some one speech which could not have
been spoken unless by conspirators, that is to say, by
persons previously engaged in a guilty combination. Ile
expected some of the speeches would have been selected
and showh to the jury as speeches that could not have
been the emanation of a single mind, but concocted by
more individuals than the man who made it. Did the
Attorney-General do any such thing? In the whole
eleven hours' during which he read much from old
newspapers, did he point out a single sentence that
must have been the result of a conspiracy ? Not
one. Again, when he came to the acts of' the
defendants, did he fasten upon a single act and
show that it could not have been the act of an indivi-
dual unless that individual had been previously en-
gaged in a criminal conspiracy? Again, lie said the At-
torney-General did not do any such thing. How, then,
did he attempt to argue there was a conspiracy? He
(Mr. Fitzgibbon) would tell them—and he was sure he
would not willingly misrepresent, it—this was his train
of reasoning. Many meetings had been held that were
illegal meetings. These meetings were called by the
defendants, and the defendants all concurred in calling
them; and, pray, mind the word he used—concurred
in calling them. They all previously consented they
should be called. They were illegal meetings; and, ac-
'cording to the law of conspiracy, if two or more agreed
to do a legal act, but by illegal means, they were guilty
of conspiracy. If, then, these eight defendants did all
agree to call meetings, and, for brevity, he would select
one—say the Tara meeting—that, said he, was an ille-
gal meeting; they had all agreed to call that meeting,
and having so agreed, and the meeting being illegal,
they were all conspirators. 'lf two or more persons agree
to do a perfectly legal act, but do so by illegal means,
these two are guilty of conspiracy. Now, said the
Attorney-General, they agreed to do a perfectly
legal thing—to petition for a repeal of the union—but
they agreed to do so by the illegal means of calling that
illegal meeting and publishing these illegal speeches—
and all of them concurring in the legal object of petition-
ing for the repeal of the union, but by illegal means, they
were all, to a man, guilty of a conspiracy. This was his
law, and this was the law he (Mr. F.) had to deal with.
He owned when he heard that law propounded in a court
of justice, in a State prosecution, it startled him a good
deal. The Attorney-General did not come there without
some little books of authority behind him. He read the
law from some of them. That he (Mr. F.) admitted—
[Elere.the Learned Counsel ceased his address for a
short time, and was obServed speaking to Mr. O'Connell,
who sat behind him. After the lapse of a few seconds he
resumed]—Gentlemen of the jury, Mr. O'Connell, whose
countenance in. this case I deem most advisable, and his
assistance, whether to suggest to me that which is neces-
sary, or restrain- me, if I am wrong—has mentioned
to me that he is obliged to go away, and I regret the
cause to arise from indisposition.
Mr. O'Connell here left the Court, and—
Mr. FITZGIBBON continued—He claimed the attention
of the jury for a moment. There was the indictment ;
they were told that this was an indictment at common
law, the meaning of which was, that this case could
have been sustained in the reign of Edward the Con-
fessor. An indictment of the same kind had been sus-
tained before the Conquest. He (Mr.'Fitzgibbon) told
them this without the fear of being contradicted by the
Court. When they approached the consideration of the
question—guilty or not guilty—they ought to consider
the time, the country, and circumstances of every crime,
.or alleged crime, which had been committed, and he was
satisfied the jury in the present instance would leave
nothing undone to enable them to arrive at a just con-
elusion. This was an indictment against eight mem-
bers of a political association ; against eight members
of an association formed for the purpose of redressing
an alleged grievance—for the purpose of procuring
the repeal of an' alleged bad law. • Would the jury
not be surprised to hear that, from the reign of Edward
the Confessor down to the year 1794, there never
was in England one single instance of the members of
any political association whatever, from the days of Wet
Tyler down to the year '94—not one single instance
could be found on record of an indictment for conspiracy
against the members of w political association? Now,
was not that, he asked, rather an astounding fact? Was
conspiracy a crime in those days, or not to be touched
by the law? Conspiracy at a very early period, indeed,
became the object of great solicitude. It was regarded
as a crime so dangerous, so infamous, that it was looked
on as a scourge, And very early became the subject of
legislative and statutary legislation. He should read a
description of the crime of conspiracy, and the law
affecting it, from a high authority. He then read an
extract from Ist vol. of Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown,
page 444. The writer said that, for the better under-
standing the nature of conspiracy, he should consider,
first, who might be said to be guilty of the crime of
conspiracy ; and, secondly, how offenders were punished.
In the first, there was no better rule than the 3d of
Edward the First, commonly called the Statute
of Treasons, which he (Mr. Fitzgibbon) said
was passed to become a scourge in the hands of those
whom it ought to govern and not to scourge. Hawkins
cited the Act of Parliament, the intent of which was to
make a final definition of what -a conspiracy was. The
Learned Counsel, then read a lone- extract from the work
which he held in his hand—whiel was to the effect that

-44 t" ,

/'onspirators were persons who bound themselves by oath
to do an illegal tict-ho bound themselves together to '
tyranise over othersto undertake malicious enterprises.
Stich (continued Mr. Fitzgibbon) was the definition .'riven
of this early statute, for the purpose of making a final
definition of eonspiracy. Ile was--quite" free to admit
that, in the same book, there were passages which might
be considered unt'avourable to his case, but he (Mr. Fitz-
gibbon) would not keep out of the view of the jury that
which the leading member of the Irish bar had done.
He would not suppress from their view one single pas-
sage that might tend to explain -the passage which he
shotild cite; and he would not say whether this course
was right or wrong
The CHIEF JUSTlCE—Where•is that?
, . Mr. Frrzctnnost—On page 446. He then read a
passage respecting the kind of conspiracies which should-
be prosecuted by indictment, and proceeded to say, that
when society Ist On to emerge from a state of barbarism, -
that confederacies of the most criminal and dangerous
character were formed, and it seemed to be only a ra-- .
dons! thing to have a law to punish such villains. He
theni ei;od the ease of the King r. Edwards, which was
an indll,tinssit for conspirneys" arising out of an attempt
on the part of the officers of a parish in England to ob- •
min possession of the money raised aeon it for the bene-
fit of the poor. One of the party charged -married a
cripple, not fbr the purpose of matrimony at all, but to'
make her chargeable to another parish. There was an-
other instance ofan indictment for conspiracy. A-cards
maker conspired with the members of his family to bribe
, the apprentice of 'another card maker to injure the paste
used _by him, by putting grease Into it, and thereby
destroying the reputation lie had gained in his trade.
They were indicted for a conspiracy, - and this case
was a fair illustration of the meaning of a cons
spiracy. No one knew of the conspiracy but the villains
themselves ; no one could actually prove that there was
a conspiracy but by what appeared to he done at various
times by the several individuals. They gave motley to
the apprentice. The father gave money on day—the
wifesgave money another—on the . third day one of the
servants—another servant on the following day. Evi.,
dence of these ()Vert acts were offered, and the Court
allowed them to be given to the jury, because the accused
parties were all members of the same family—all in •
eluded in the same practice—all influenced by the same
design—that of ruining the rival card-maker by these
means. The acts of each separately could not be ac-
counted for, but it was left to the jury to consider whe-
ther the acts of all were not the result of a previous
conspiracy. This he - conceived -to be a fair illustration.
Mr. Justice BURTON—Where is that case ?
Mr. FITZGIBBON—It was reported in Strange, and
well known as the card•maker's case. He would now
call the attention of the jury to the definition given by
the Attorney-General. He (Mr. F.) took it down from
his own lips. He told them -that conspiracy was a
crime that consisted either of a combination to do some
• illegal act, or to effect a legal purpose by illegal means,
and, in support of his view, he cited two cases—one
the King v. Rose, in 4th Barnewall and_Adolphus, pages
349-350 The defendants were indicted for combining
to conceal the effects of a bankrupt. In this case there
was a conviction, and the jury found a verdict of guilty.
There was a motion for an arrest of judgment, and, in
giving judgment against the indictment, Lord Denman
said that the indictment ought to have charged that the
parties combined to do an unlawful, or a lawful, act, by
unlawfill means. This was a mere dictum, or saying,
and not the decision of a Court; and no judge should pay
much attention to these, the mere " ipse dixih," if
he might use the word. • These dices were well des-
cribed by Sir Anthony Hart, ' when he said they were
used to mislead one' judge by misrepresenting another.
He (Mr. Fitzgibbon) heard a judge Of equal ability—
the present Baron Pennefather—repudiate the principle
or practice of citing in one case what a judge had said
in another : for this reason, what was said in a par-
ticular case was said with reference to the facts proved,
and not said as laying down a general law, to effeet
cases that might- be composed of very different facts.
In the case of the King v. Seymour, there was an in-
dictment against the officers of one parish for conspiring
to throw paupers upon another, and after a verdict
there was a motion for arrest of judgment, as in the
former case. The motion was granted—the judgment
arrested. Lord Denman spoke again, and supported
his former dictum in the case of the King v. Jones.
This was going a great way to establish the correctness
of the point—the same high authority, speaking and
acting similarly on .two occasions. It so happened
that in 1839 there was another case before the very
same Chief Justice, of an indictment for conspiring
against a set of persons who opened splendid shops
and induced tradesmen to give them 'goods on credit.
They were convicted, but there was a motion for an
arrest ofjudgment, because it was declared not to be a
case properly within the law of indictment. Lord Den-
man had his own dictum cited, but he would not receive
it, and decided against it ; and so far as the authority of
Lord Denman in this case went, there was no weight.
CHIEF JUSTICE—Where is that case reported ?
Mr. FITZGIBBON—It was the case of the King v.
Keck, 2d Adolphus and Ellis. There was also a dictum
of the late Lord Chief Justice Bushe in the ease of' the
King v. Forbes, cited by the Attorney-General. That
very able man did lay down the law pretty much in the
same way. In his charge to the jury he said—
The CIIIEF JUSTICE inquired where this case was
be found.

Mr. FITZGIBBON—It was at page 347 in Mr. Green's
report of the trial of Forbes and others,-charged with
conspiracy in Dublin in 1823. In that charge it was
laid down that when two or more persons confederated
together for effecting an illegal purpose by legal means,
it constituted the crime of conspiracy ; also, that they
were guilty should the object never be effected. Ile
(Mr. Fi:zgibbon) cautioned the jury against adopting
text-books of law, which he compared to map-making
—the writers of text-books generally adopting those
which they already found in existence. The Learned
Gentleman next adverted to the case of the Kin,* v.
Edwards, in East's Pleas of the Crown, in which it
was reported that the Court said the bare conspiracy to
do a lawful act to an unlawful end was a crime. This
was the bare dictum of the Court, describing an offeuce.
In vain would they look for such a definition in the old
books, or in the common law. No doubt it was to be
seen in Mr. East's book—a man almost of the present
day, but no authority. He was not a judge, but a-re-
porter of the dicta of judges. Id the case of the King v.
Edwards, he made a commentary on the decision before
him. He would now proceed to the second proposition
of the.Attorney-General, who told them if the defendants
had been engaged in a common design to obtain the
end sought, they were all equally • responsible, and
the acts of' one were to be held as the acts of all. What
was the common design ? To obtain the repeal of the
union. One million, at least, of their countrymen had
been engaged in that common design. If there be guilt
in that design, then are the million guilty, and 'they
are involved in one of the most serious crimes that could
be charged against a subject of the realm. Nothing could
be more monstrous or more unconstitutional than this.
According to the Attorney-General, the act of every
one of that million is to lie taken as evidence against
the entire. 'The conversation with a person totally
unknown to Capt. Despard, behind a hedge, should, ac-
cording to the dictum of the Attorney-General, be taken
us evidence not only against the traversers here, but
against all who had been at the meeting, or who mixed
in the repeal movement. Could the jury, as men of
common ,ense, or as honest men, give their sanction to
a doctrine so utterly monstrous? That declaration of the
unknown man behind the ditch, is adduced here as an
overt act against the traversers. The jury were not
there strictly to try whether any of the meetings were
illegal—whether sedition was uttered at those meet-
ings. The meetings were in evidence to show that the
repeal of the union was sought by illegal means. It was
only in that way that the question of illgality could arise.
The meeting was brought in to show, that without pre-
vious concert amongst the defendants it could not have
taken place. Could any, rational being believe the story
told by Captain Despard—that 2,000 able-bodied men
had marched all the way from Shilmalier to Tara ?
Did they travel in a balloon, so high in the air that they
could not be- seen ? Did they travel under-ground ?
Did any human being see them on the way ? Where
is the man, of all the police at the Tara meeting, to say
he saw a single Wexford man at the meeting ? Cap-
tain Despard did not see one—nor did any body else.
Captain Despard is a handsome-looking fellow, flippant,
clever—a very ready witness, who came here to tell not
a very probable story.
.If he (Mr. Fitv^ibbOn) had'been
a witness to such a fact, he confessed he would be very
anxious to receive some corroboration of so startling a
statement, that there were 2,000 able men—strong, fight-
ing men—at Tara, who had come all the way from Shil-
' malier. And it should be recollected, too, that this Shil•
malier man volunteered this statement of the fighting
men—men of bone and sinew, such as O'Connell
wanted—to the Stipendiary Magistrate, the very indivi-
dual to whom it would be dangerous to communicate it,
were a fact at all. The Superintendent of Po-
lice ;, was standing in immediate contact with Cap-
taid Despard, and must have heard this story ; but
he is not produced, and yet the jury were called
to believe that such a conversation took place.
Why was not Major Westenra produced? He was there
—the pretended Wexford man was there—they were all
in a group, yet the Major was not produoed. He
thought he would be able to show them, in the progress
of this case, a little of management. They were now
in the year 1844, and should do things now a days in
something of a more civilised style than in former
days. It would not do that a man who had been the
suggester of the matters charged should be produced
as evidence for the prosecution. In reference to the
devices on the Repeal card, if Mr. Holbrooke had
been a noisy bustling person—a forward Repealer, a
wearer of the repearcap, it would not do to produce
him, for testimony of that kind would not suit for a jury.
No, he had two young men in his employment whose
characters had not been impeached, and who had no
connection with the movement, and they were produced.
Holbrooke had been employed by the Association—he is
now working for the Government—and if' the facts re-
garding him had appeared, there would have been a
cry of indignation. Was not there in that evidence of
management, subtlety, and craft? Combine this with-
holding of Holbrooke with the story of the Wex-
ford man, and was it too much to ask the jury to be
lieve that there was here some signs of contrivance on
the part of the Crown ? The Attorney-General had
quoted Mr. Justice Coleridge in support of his monstrous
proposition—he merely used the scissors. -sad cut out
of
to
.150
the dictum of that judge. It was, however, onlyfair to
pr
(toTl:isehLowea
that,rned
Gtheenratleainnatnghielthil•eeaedntifrroemoftillielsjii[irtiteniitt,
of conspiracy, yet there should be evidence.. that
although the common design rootsnved.a(s7t;ihrtte
,t,ahmeree the
the Attorney-General was a flat, ittonstrous, and absurd
litiinsbfebern aacopmremvoionuse.
version -of the law of conspiracy. • lie &incurred-with
the, view of Mr. Justice Coleridge, :taken as a whole.
In the.case quoted, he had spoken to the jury of aeta
proved,, and there could-have been do - mistake as to his
weaning. The moutrous propo4o.u. Of the Atritvaley-

General was totally-unsupported by the judgment of
t'rlt Judge. Counsel next referred to the case of the
Z-sig v. Watson, a case of treason, and quoted from Mr.
;Justice Bailey, who, in his charge to the grand jury,
held that there must be previous consultation and design
to establish, conspiracy. The jury should believe 1
that the payCieS
_actually did consult for a criminal

_ •
otherwise, might have upon myself or my 'personal inte-
rests. Ido not think any counsel is justified, even in'
his public capacity, in attributing such unworthy and
; unwarrantable motives to me, as that I could be influ-

eneed in this case by any interests with respect to the
political party to which I belong. I did then, and Ido
still, feel very much offended at it —very much irritated
at such an allusion—and I consider that no observation

which could be used could more strongly tend to excite
such a feeling. Certainly, if language of the kind
was not intended to convey a personal imputation
on myself, I cannot conceive anything easier than for
a gentleman to state that he had been misunderstood by
myself and my friends. These are the circumstances, and
if there is any question to be properly brought before
the Court, whatever its rule may be, I am perfectly cer-
tain it will not sanction tiny personal imputations on the
counsel who are engaged in conducting it.
Mr. MooftE was about to make some observation, when
Mr. FITZGIBBON again rose and said—l beg your
pardon ; allow me to address the Court. My Lords,
I could very well understand the good sense and pro-
priety on the part of the Attorney-General of calling
my attention to anything which I said that might have
offended him, and I could equally understand the pro-
priety of my acting in accordance with the feelings and
principles of a gentleman, had he permitted me the op-
portunity of taking that course which propriety would
dictate. I will not now say what I might have done
under the circumstances, for that was not the way he
acted ; but, with a pistol in his hand, he says to me,
" I'll pistol you unless you make an apology ;" and I
cannot help telling him now, that such a course won't
draw an apology from me. _ _ •

design, before they could hold them guilty of con-
spiracy. He came next to the third proposition of
the Attorney-General, and entreated the attention of
the jury. The 'Attorney-General said that, provided a
man subsequently came into the common design, he was
equally responsible as if he had been associated from the
beginning, as at criminal conspirator. Perhaps, by-and-
bye, the Solicitor-General would endeavour to explain,
and get the Atturney-General out of this absurdity,
bycontending that the parties subsequently coming in
would 'become responsible by seditious and illegal acts
—by calling large multitudes, and uttering seditious
speeches. The Attorney-General, in support of his
proposition, had qUoted Mr. Justice Bayley. (Counsel
read from the opinion of that judge, to show that the
cases were not at all analogous.) He would now deal with
another proposition of law of the Attorney-General,
who had referred to the case of Redford and Birnie;
which arose out of a far-famed transaction in Manches-
ter, in 1820. They had all heard of the meeting on the 16th
of August, 1819, at Peterloo, in Manchester. Mr. Hunt,
who was in the chair, was arrested, and several persons
were killed. Hunt was prosecuted, and the indictment
chewed him with a conspiracy. There were three counts.
He was charged with conspiracy, confederacy, &c., with the
other persons indicted. The Attorney-General of that day
did not think it safe to go to trial merely on three counts
for a conspiracy. He knew it would be a novelty to an
English jury, and, therefore, added a fourth count, for
attending an unlawful assembly. They were tried at
York, and the case occupied ten days. The Crown
strove, by every means, to establish a conspiracy, which
was the very question for trial before the jury—it
not being competent to any judge to declare any man
a conspirator until twelve men on their oaths, who are
not judges, had found him to be so. That tribunal,
the Jury, decided that. Hunt was not guilty of con-
spiracy. They gave that verdict, not because they were
political partisans, or men of one-sided views in politics;
but they gave their verdict as honest Englishmen on
their oaths. Redford, who had been wounded at the
meeting, brought his action against the man who
wounded him with a sabre. That case was tried. There
was a plea of not guilty, which is as much as to say the
act was not done; but that plea was not always safe,
and there were other pleas, to the effect that the meet-
ing was illegal and the plaintiff, being there illegally,
the defendant only did his duty as a yeoman by assisting
to disperse it. Conspiracy being illegal, it became ne-
cessary to prove it, and a witness was produced who
had been ill-used by aparty engaged in drilling pre-
vious to the meeting. That very evidence must have
been given on Hunt's trial, who was acquitted of the
conspiracy ; but when the evidence was tendered on the
civil action, it was admitted by the judge, and the jury
found a general verdict for the defendant. A motion
was made to set that verdict aside, on the ground of the
admission of illegal evidence. The judges refused to
set the verdict aside, and the Attorney-General referred
to the dicta of the judges in support of his view of the
conspiracy and illegal meeting. The judges in
,that.
case only referred to the admission of evidence, as to the
drilling, to go before the jury in a civil action.—
And it was in such a case as this that the Attorney-
General sought a precedent and authority to prove a
conspiracy and illegal meeting here. Hunt had been
acquitted of conspiracy, and the judges had not, in
fact, the question of conspiracy before them. The
dicta of the judges about the admission of evidence of
drilling in Manchester, had been urged by the At-
torney-General in reference to the Repealers, who had
no drilling at all. The Attorney-General had only read
a small extract from Lord Wynford; he (Mr. F.) would
read the entire of it, with note and comment. Lord
Wynford referred to the parties engaged in drilling in
Manchester being armed, in rank and file, and firing at
the word of command, being ordered to advance at the
sound of trumpet. Such were the drillings Lord Wyn-
ford spoke of. Was it fair to read the extract the At-
torney-General had read, without bringing under the
notice of the jury the sort of drilling that Lord Wyn-
ford had spoken of ? . A lawyer was bound to state the
law fairly and candidly—above all, he was bound to do
so in a State prosecution, where a man of his'own rank, in
his own profession, who had been nearly half a century
distinguished in his profession, was concerned. The At-
torney-General, in such a case, was more especially bound
to state the law fairly, when a man was concerned who
had been so long his admitted superior in the profes-
sion, and who was charged with a crime for which, if
he were found guilty, he would be conveyed to a dun-
geon in the closing period of his life. If ever there was
a case when it became the duty of a barrister in the
discharge of his public duty to prosecute a brother
barrister, he ought to do it fairly, Justly, honourably ;
but if in the discharge of that public duty, as Attorney-
General or Crown prosecutor, he aims below the mark—
if he cites the law for own particular purposes, and omits
passages which he ought not to have omitted—if
he seek a conviction, no matter by what means it is to
be obtained, he is no longer deserving of public respect
or of public confidence. He (Mr. Fitzgibbon) if he
had stooped to act in the manner he had described,
would cease to enjoy his own self-respect. He could
not consent to earn the guilty wages of professional suc-
cess ; he would feel that he had been guilty of an act of
turpitude, which would fdlr ever disable him from raising
his head in society. The jury, he was quite certain,
could not be totally ignorant of the history of their coun-
try, or of the great events which took place in their
hemisphere. They were not ignorant that when Wil-
liam the Conqueror landed in England, the greater por-
tion of the population of the island were bond slaves.
'This was an indictment charging the defendants with
the exhibition of great physical force. It did not
charge them with seeking to attain their object by the
use of physical force—the use of it was not at all con-
templated. An immense mass of the community were
dissatisfied with a law, and they came forward in large
masses, to express their determination never to cease
their constitutional efforts until that law shall
have been repealed. And the Attorney-General calls
that a crime. Was there a crime in the attainment of
Magna Charm ? Was there no exhibition of physical
force at Runnymede, with the Barons in full armour,
requiring their Sovereign to sign a charter they had
bought ready made ! That is a charter which no At-
torney-General, no Judge, no King would dare to say,
that, because it had been procured in that way, it was,
therefore, void. But there were other instances in
English history of great changes produced by the
very same means. Was there, in fact, any great
change produced without them? Was there no ex-
hibition of physical force at the Clare election ?
The people were discontented with the state of the law,
and they sought, peaceably and in large masses, to
effects a reformation. Why was this a monstrous case?
. Because the Ministry of the day sought to get into their
hands a scourge to prevent and repress the expression
of popular discontent. He next referred to the
period of the French revolution, when an indictment had
been preferred against a great man, Horne Tooke. As
in this case, a chaos of papers had been thrown on the
table, and the jury were left to spell their way
through them. That prosecution had been counte-
nanced by the King—it was pressed with all the energy
of the Attorney- General and Solicitor-General
of the day ; but the common sense and honesty
of the jury prevailed—they found a verdict of not
guilty. He (Mr. Fitzgibbon) felt a great responsibility
in this case, from a knowledge of his own deficiency. In
the case of Hardy, public liberty had for its champion
Mr. Erskine; Hardy was acquitted. They then brought
forward Tooke, and he was acquitted. The Crown still
persevered, but each successive jury defeated their at-
tempts to establish constructive treason, and that was
• the last attempt in England.
At this moment (two o'clock) the Court retired for
refreshment.
Daring the absence of the judges and jury for re-
freshments, a scene of the most singular, remarkable,
and truly unprecedented character took place in Court
which perhaps it ever fell to the lot of a journalist to
record. It was observed that some hasty observations,
and in a very excited tone and manner, passed between
Mr. Fitzgibbon and the Attorney-General, and there
was, to use the language of Mr. Shell, " a hush of public
expectancy and almost breathless silence ;" when, after a
much more protracted absence than usual, their Lord-
ships resumed their seats upon the Bench.
Mr. FITZGIBBON rose and said—My Lords, as I was
coming into Court after having, from the effects of ill-
ness, endeavoured to take a short respite in the library,
after an exertion not very seasonable, having regard to
the state of my health, a note was put into my hand,
signed by the Attorney-General, which I ask him now
to read to your Lordships.
A short pause ensued, and the Attorney-General
having made no reply,
Mr. FITZGIBBON continued—My Lords, I hope that
in opening the case, I did very clearly and very plainly
. express my sense of the position in which I had been
professionally placed. I think I did very clearly and
plainly express what my opinions and what my feelings
were in respect to the gentlemen who here represent
the Crown. I very clearly separated any reference in
what I said of my private feelings from what I consi-
dered my duty required of me to express, not in refer-
ence to themselves personally, but to their conduct in
this prosecution, and I do not think that I
travelled out of the line of my duty in making those
observations. I observed upon no act or thought of a
. single one of them, except an act done or a thought ex-
pressed in the course of this prosecution. I said very
plainly and distinctly that I would despise myself if I
. left unobserved any point upon which my client might
observe if he were in my position, and defending him-
self as his own counsel, or, I in his, 'as a
traverser at the bar, and defending myself.
I pursued what I considered 'to be the couise
which my duty indicated, and I don't think I went
beyond it. Now, my Lords, I ask the Attorney-Ge-
neral neral to hand up that note ; and if he will not, I will tell
your Lordships the substance of it. He tells me in that
note that I have given him a personal offence, and he
calls upon me, if I do not apologise for it, to name a
friend.—(Sensation throughout the Court.) I need not
advert further to his position or to mine on the preSent
occasion, nor is it necessary for me to refer to my pecu-
liar position at this moment, while defending one of the
traversers here ; but, with these observations, I shall
leave it with your Lordships to deal with his conduct.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose and said, in rather an
indistinct tone—lf Mr. Fitzgibbon has any application
to make to the Court, let it be made is the usual form.
Let him make an affidavit, setting forth all the facts.
Mr. FITZGIBBON (warmly)--I never will.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I then have to state
that he attributed to me in this Court and it
was so taken down in writing by some of my
friends—that my public conduct in the conducting
and carrying on of these prosecutions was influenced
by private and dishonourable motives. By the effect
which :the result of this prosecution, in its failure er

Some minutes elapsed without any further obsermtion
having been made on either side, the Court having
been engaged during the interval in consultation.
CHIEF JUSTICE—Mr. Moore you were going to make
some observations awhile ago.
Mr. MooßE—Really my Lord, I am afraid, after
what has lately occurred, of making any observation at
all in the matter. What I was going to take the liberty
of suggesting to the Court, in reference to an occur-
rence which I am sure every individual member of the
bar, and the public, will equally regret, in a case like the
present, where the feelings of every person engaged on
the one side or on the other, are necessarily very much
excited, and in which I should hope every indulgence
might be extended to anything irregular that may
have occurred—what I was going to take the liberty of
suggesting was, that as there appears to exist a very
warm feeling on one side and on the other, an opportu-
tunity should be afforded of allowing that to subside, and
of removing on both sides any misconception that may
have previously existed. That was the proposition I
was going to to take the liberty of making. I cannot
attempt to justify what has taken place, nor am I au-
thorised to interfere in it; but from the position which
I have the honour to hold, and the sincere personal
regard I entertain for both gentlemen, I think it
might be desirable for their own sake, for the interests
of the profession, and the sake of the public at large, that
the Court should allow some interval to elapse, in order
that those feelings may subside, and this most unpleasant
affair may be satisfactorily arranged.
CHIEF JUSTICE—The Court are very much indebted,
and very much obliged to you, Mr. Moore, for the part
you have taken, and the short explanation you have
given. The Court feel themselves placed in a very em-
barrassing and perplexing situation. They feel unwil-
ling to give any intimation of their opinion as to the
propriety or impropriety of what has taken place in
Court, being willing to make allowance fur the excited
feelings of the gentlemen concerned in a case of this na-
ture, which may carry them beyond what their cool judg-
ment would approve of. They, therefore, give no sort of
intimation at present of what their opinion is in regard to
the conduct of the gentlemen at either side pending the
trial of this case. They feel it to be a very embarrassing
case to be required to pronounce any sort of opinion
while a case of this nature, in which the public is so
much interested, is depending before the Court, the jury,
and the public at large ; and they also feel that of all
men in the profession, the Attorney-General is the last
man who ought to have allowed himself to be betrayed
into such an expression of feeling as has been stated to
the Court as having taken place during our absence,
for although we were not personally present, it yet oc-
curred while the Court was sitting in the discharge of its
judicial functions.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—I have to state, and my
friends tell me so, that the note was written very hastily;
but considering the position I was placed in, and the
strongly irritated feeling I was under, I concur in what
has been suggested to me, and I have no objection to
withdraw that letter, but I shall make no further turns
about. I feel that I was very badly dealt with, and I
leave it to the Court to consider what course the gentle-
man who used that language ought to adopt in regard to
what is due to me.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—The Court are bound to consi-
der what took place as if it occurred during the business
of the Court, and we can't by any possibility allow it to
go further. It must be put a stop to.:
Mr. Moore—l know how very difficult a position lam
placed in ; but I would take the liberty of suggesting to
Mr. Fitzgibbon, after what has been said by the At-
torney-General, that he should admit that he has fallen
into an error, which any man may fall into ; and I only
suggest to him what I would do myself if I were placed
in the same unpleasant situation.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—Your Lordships have heard—and
all who are now present have heard—what fell from me
in the course of my address to the jury. The Attorney-
' General has repeated what he says was taken down as
my language, and he says that I imputed to him dis-
honourable motives—of being influenced in his public
conduct, in regard to these prosecutions, by the love
of place, or desire of place, or personal advantage to
himself. My Lords, that language did not come from
me—l carefully avoided it. I spoke of Lord Coke and
others being influenced by those feelings which every
public prosecutor was more or less influenced by in those
days, and which might appear to influence public
justice ; but I appeal to your Lordships' recollection
whether I ascribed to the Attorney-General one single
feeling dishonourable to him more than what I suggested
was thecause of unusual warmth in a public prosecutor
in all cases of this kind. I regret extremely that
the Attorney-General before he took the course he
did, did not address me, for I stand here uncon-
scious of having either said anything or done any act
with the intention of wounding the feelings of another.
I never imputed personal motives of a dishonourable
nature to the Attorney-General. What I have done,
my Lords, in this case, and what I have said, I have said
and done in the discharge of what I conscientiously felt
to be the duty I owed to my client. I did not speak of
him except in the opening of my address to the jury,
and in what terms did I speak of him then ? I spoke
of him as a gentleman in the best sense of the word—
I spoke of him as a lawyer in the best and most dig-
nified sense of the word. Such is the character and
extent of the language which I applied to him personally.
Did I not say all that in his behalf ; and did I not add
that my personal experience of him fully warranted
me in saying thus much? This was the extent of my
personal allusions to the Attorney-General, and if in
the subsequent part of my address I made any reference
to him, I did so in the discharge of the duty which, as
an advocate, I owe my client, and my remarks were
meant to apply to his conduct in the present case and to
nothing else. lam not disposed to claim as a right the
privilege of canvassing the conduct of the Attorney-
General. If it be a right it is to me a most painful one;
but when I am defending a gentleman who has done me
the honour of confiding to me his defence, where lie is
accused of an atrocious offence, I feel it to be my impera-
tive duty to analyse the official conduct of the first law
officer of the Crown in the present case; but out of the'
present case I will not travel. I spoke of the Attorney-
General as a public man, and as such only, in reference
to the present prosecution. I spoke of his conduct in the
present case ; but out of the present case I did not for
a moment travel, nor did I allude to one solitary act of
his life unconnected with this trial ; and am I to be told
that I am to make an apology to a gentleman who
The CHIEF JUSTICE—You may have misunderstood
the Attorney-General, Mr. Fitzgibbon.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—My Lord, it is totally impossible
that I could have misunderstood him.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Yes, but, Mr. Fitzgibbon, we
are all liable to fall into error, and it is possible that
there may be misconceptions on both sides.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—My Lords, the first emotion of my
mind, when I got his note was—no, I will not say what
it was—my second was to let him out of the difficulty
in which he had placed himself.
[Here Mr. Fitzgibbon was handed in a piece of paper,
in shape not unlike that on which the alleged challenge
was written ; but he tore it across, and flung the frag-
ments under the table..l
The CHIEF JUSTICE—I was going to say that the
whole matter had now been under the consideration of
the Court, and that there was no necessity to go any fur-
ther into a statement of the circumstances.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—I have been misunderstood, my
Lord. Ido
CHIEF JUSTICE—The Attorney-General has with-
drawn the note he has addressed to you, Mr. Fitzgibbon.
He has expressed his regret that it was written, and
wishes it to be regarded as if it had never been written.
He misunderstood you.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—My Lords, any man must have
grossly misunderstood me who imputes to me the intention
of attributing base motives to any one in the discharge
of my professional duty. If I could for a moment
imagine that any man could conscientiously suppose me
capable of such gross conduct as that of imputing to
the Attorney-General base motives—l having nothing
on earth to say to his motives—l can only say that such
a man has grossly misinterpreted me. Were I, indeed,
capable of acting such a part I could never again esteem
or respect myself, and the direst punishment that could
befal me would be the self-reproach which would follow
me in every scene of my life. I only spoke of the
Attorney-General in his official character as the law
adviser of the Crown ; and my remarks had only refer-
ence, I again repeat, to his conduct in the present case.
Mr. MOORE rose and said that the gentlemen at both
sides having given every explanation that could be ex-
pected from them, of whatever was disagreeable in this
distressing occurrence, he hoped that the matter might
now be fairly considered as set at rest. He trusted that
it would be passed over in silence and consigned to obli-
vion for ever.
The CHIEF JUSTICE (after consulting with his bre-
thren) said that the Court felt exceedingly obliged to
Mr. Moore for the part he had taken on this perplexing
and distressing occasion. The matter was now at rest,
be
the Court most
ennecessaryherearteearrntoesatdlyvetrrtuis.nted anythmatani w
manner
erod ulnot
whatso-
ever to what had taken place. He should hope it was not
necessary to say any more on the matter than had been
already stated.
The ATTORNEV-G ENERAL—I of course acquiesce in
every thing that has fallen from the Court. I have with-
drawn the note, and, inasmuch as I understood Mr.
Fitzgibbon to repudiate the idea of imputing any un-
worthy or personal motives to me, i eau only say I am
satisfied.

The CHIEF JusTrcE—That this unpleasant matter i I recommend--to ylur early- consideration the enactments at I
may at once be set at res,, th•-' Court Mink that they i Present in force in Irel -lid concerning the registration of voters.for
may call upon each gentleman to declare that be is Members of Parliament.
You will probably find that a revision of the law of re-
satisfied to abide by what hal just fallen from Mr. Moore.
taken in conjunction with other causes at
Mr. FrrzGinnoN—l can only say that I did not mean
to attribute any unworthy motive to the Attorner- , gistration,present in operation, would produce a material diminution of the
number of county voters, and that it may be advisable, on that
General, and I have no other feeling towards him at t le . account, to consider the state of the law, with a view to an ex.
present moment different from what I felt this mornit g. tension of the county franchise ill Ireland.
• ' Thus the matter dropped. ; I commit to your deliberate consideration the various important
Mr. FITZGIBBON then resumed, and continued his ad- questions of Public Policy, which will necessarily come under
dress until a quarter to five •'clock, when the Court your review, with full confidence in your loyalty and wisdom, and
rose, the Learned. Gentleman being still in possession of with an earnest prayer to Almighty God to direct and-favour your
their Lordships' attention. When the Judges were efforts to promote the welfare of all classes of my people.
about to leave the bench, At the conclusion of the speeeh, the Speaker and Members
Dr. Gray said, my Lord, I beg leave to know if I oan of the House of Commons withdrew, and her Majesty and her
offer a few words to your Lordships with respect to suite left the House in the same order in which they had.
had entered it.
what occurred to day in Court. Their Lordships' then adjourned during pleasure. - -
The CHIEF JUSTICE—We cannot hear you now, Sir, The interior of the House was fitted up in the same manner
address the Court. Have you not Counsel, and have as it was at the time of the prorogation. Her Majesty's chair
you not been heard through your Counsel ? of state was raised upon a dais. On the right of her 111 ajesty's
Dr. Gray—lf your Lordships hear me for a few mo- chair was that of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and
merits, I will not trespass long upon the attention of the on the left that of his Royal Highness Prince Albert.. The
Court. dais and the steps leading to the throne were covered with a
CHIEF JUSTICE—The Court will not hear any gentle- magnificent Turkey carpet.
men when they have Counsel.
Judge PERRIN—And during the speech of their
Counsel.

CHIEF JUSTICE—And during the speech of Counsel.
The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock to-Morrow
morning.

Their Lordship's met again at a quarter to five. There was
an unusually large attendance of Peers. The Duke of Wel-
lington, as usual, was early in his seat. Lord Melbourne en-
tered at a few minutes after five ; he appeared to be in excellent
health. The Duke of Cambridge sat on the cross benches.
The Earl of Glasgow, the Marquis of Winchester, and Lord
Suffield. took the oaths and their seats.
The Duke of WELLINGTON laid on the table a Bill for
the Better Regulation of Vestries.
THE ADDRESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then read her Majesty's
on
presentxonyt
condole p
withouta ri
speech, from the woolsack, it having been again read by the
Clerk, at the table.
Lord ELDON rose to move the address to her Majesty. He
with
its doreoti ree
ofo
s the
while
t
said—Your Lordships have been so habitually accustomed to
r two t request from you that which you always so
o h a
3,d buei snsg
n y o
ru
te
11,4 e u h r
pea
dt
. 0 I s
p fce
Ay i t
L t oo y
rd buse r, a super-
fluousv
oen extend your indu:gence to those who, on such an occasion
a
to listen
grant
to me for a few minutes, and aFsu, e you
that it is with great. gratification I am enabled to rise to move
an address in reply to such a gracious speech as that which her
Majesty has made to you. My Lords, it has keen the fortune
of those who have preceded me in former years, to rely on your
kindness while they held out to you prospects which
they trusted would be realised ; they therefore could
only speak in that manner in which that person
must do, who was to ask a favour of those whom he
is addressing. My Lords, it is my better f,,rtune, though by
no merit of my own, that the address which I now before you
is one containing nothing—at least scarcely anything—except-
ing matters of congratulation both for the Sovereign and the
country—it is a peculiar piece of good fortune for hose who
were present on former occasions, to find the prophecies which
they then made have been so amply realised. From the high
character of your Lordships' House, even if any of those are
now present who formerly expressed opinions contrary to the
success of those measures—or who even opposed them, while
they were going through the House—even they will not now
hesitate to join me in approving the prudence of the mea-
sures which they at the time doubted, and that we shall
have the gratification of giving an unanimous vree,
rnentary in every way, to the Sovereign who receives it,
and as gratifying to the nation as it can be to her
Majesty. There is indeed one exception among these
sources of gratification which I hold in my hand.
your Lordships will all feel as sincerely as I do, that we are
only doing credit to her Majesty's feelings, when we say that
this subject, though mentioned last in her Majesty's Speech,
must be one -of the foremost, as well as one of the
deepest, is her mind. It is, my Lords, unquestionable
that the subject of Ireland must be, to any person con-
nected by local interest with that country or not,
a subject causing the most sincere and anxious feeling
and the wish that the troubled waters which have so long caused
confusion in that eou try should, if possible delay the verdict.
lour Lordships not fear that in alluding to this subject lam
going to trespass on the bounds so judiciously laid
down by her Majesty ; or that I am going to make any obser-
vations on those circumstances which are now under the consi-
deration of the legal tribunals of that country; but there
is another past of her Majesty's speech which bears
on this subject. Her Majesty states that she has the greatest
gratification in being able to persist in the same ci urse she has
hitherto done, because she feels it right, in endeavouring by
every mode to secure that justice, and strict justice, shall be
done to Ireland. Her Majesty promised an original declara-
tion, that she would take every step to secure the peace and
the prosperity of the people of that country, and
to maintain, in full force, the Legislative Union
which she found established. Her Majesty also directed every
step to be taken by the present laws, administered by the
present executive, for the preservation of order. Her Majesty
had adhered to that declaration, andher promises had been amply
redeemed, and those things which have been done contrary to law
had been brought before the legal tribunals to be there decided.
My Lords, I am well aware that the result of those trials is a
matter with which I have nothing at all to do. Whether those
trials, or any others, may terminate in an acquittal, or in a
conviction, I am sure your Lordships will concur with me in
the opinion, that we should support her Majesty in carrying out
her intentions, and that if the present law of the land is ina-
dequate to preserve the peace of that country—perfect as now
is my confidence and reliance upon the present laws
in this country to maintain the public peace, and to protect
the liberty of the subject—l would, under present circum-
stances, feel no hesitation in supporting her Majesty's Ministers
or any Noble Lord, on either side of the House, in giving to
her Majesty increased powers for the preservation of the peace
and integrity of the empire. lam sure that every Member of
your Lordships' House will concur in any measure which may
be necessary for the happiness and prosperity of Ireland.
Her :Majesty has this day pointed out to us one or
two of the subjects to which it is desirable that we
should direct our attention. The registration of voters is one
of which, I am sure, your Lordships acknowledge the import-
ance. Her Majesty has referred to that subject in her
speech, and I trust that when it is brought forward
your Lordships will give it every consideration, and do
everything in your power to promote the happiness
of that country. Her Majesty has also called our
attention to the laws relating to landlord and tenant. On that
subject, a Commission of Inquiry has been appointed, and
your Lordships will agree
vweirtehiogfnmse, that the utmost reliance
may be placed in the sagacity, justice, and ability of my Noble
Friend at the head of the Commission, and of the gentlemen
who are associated with him in the inquiry. 1 am sure they will
spare no pains in thoroughly investigating the subject, and
bringing before you all the information which it may be in
their power to collect. Her Majesty has told us now, as on
former occasions, that the most amicable relations continue to
subsist between her Government and foreign nations.
countries,tinons.lnher
oconfirming
fneibo
that friendship.
It t been visitse
great gratification to their Lordships
to see two of the greatest warriors of this age con.
forting happiness
source
ofo
upon their country by social in-
tercourse ; and much greater was it now to see
the Sovereigns of.the countries meeting in the same manner,
shere recent
hoden has
hn a dh
et opportunities o the Sovereigns
and with the same friendly feelings. But he was not, when he
said this, at all throwing any other nation into the back
ground. He had only to notice the French in 2 more
more prominent point. Circumstances had thrown this great
nation in a situation in which they had occasion to act upon
nearly similar principles by which England were guided. The
subject which her Alajesty next mentioned was the subject of
our intercom se with China. The circumstances connected with
the whole of the war, and the consequent negotiations in that
country could not fail to strike their Lordships as being most ad-
vantageous to this country, But the liberality of her Majesty
was such, that she was anxious that other nations should also
share in those advantages, and the conduct of this country in
that instance, was marked by the most kindly feelings, even
towards those nations who had acted in such a manner as to
call for no forbearance on the part of this country. With re-
spect to that part of her Majesty's speech, in which
she alludes to Scinde, he should abstain from saying
more than that he was sure their Lordships must
feel sincere gratification at the bravery and conduct of the
military engaged in the operations there. He should not refer
to the policy of that country, because he understood it was her
Majesty's intention to older certain papers in connection with
this subject to be laid before their Lordships. The subject of
the Estimates came more properly under the consideration
of the House of Lords, and he should therefore only
say that her Majesty had directed that the strictest
economy should be observed under this head. But this expen-
diture, it should be remembered, must depend very much
upon the state of the country ; and it had been necessary,
during the last season, to keep a large force in Ireland,
dering; the disturbances and agitaton there. These dis-
turbances were most painful to contemplate, but
he should read a letter from a young lady,
the daughter of a clergyman in that country,
description of the state of the country. lie felt bound to state
that that letter was never intended to be read before their Lord-
ships, where it was written.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

irbirb %.tatton