The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 21, 1844.

ss°lll4tion of the unirm. If the Government was not pre-
red to show how Ireland could be governed in a state
p.eac e and prosperity—if they were not prepared to
"Qt' their policy, then it became most itnportatt
at the country should con,ider what would
the rest.lt of such a state of things.—(hear.)
on
e would urfAv refer to a topic which had been touched
Ss, that by
ge7,d If
emen on both sides of the ous,, whit'
the the people of Ireland did not place contidnict!
7fiesent Governinent. He believed that a :hrge
fi"v..ion of those in Ireland who were interest most
e subjects respecting which complaints were made,
lint entertain confidence in the present Government.
hey found that large meetings had been he;'d in Ireland
Inch had excited the greatest alarm. pid the Govern-
ent entertain alarm at those meetings? He presumed
at they did. The Hon. and Learncl Gentleman who
means
been the
of calling those meetings from first
Iv
litst, had declared that he did not mean to break the
th. In the other House of :Parliament those meetings
edeclared to be illegal, rated yet what was-the policy
Government with rospect to them? Could any man
ipinle why they did ;,tot interfere to step them ? It
)„,'``,„t ,be asked how -,tere the to stop them ? Why,
they stop ,:dem at last? Why, he would ask, did
.e 7 allow those meetings to continue for nine months ?
nat Itiornent one Government issued their proclamation,
livid "can't the meetings ceased—that moment the
eeti Alai who had been instrumental in causing those
-ogs, felt it to be his duty to use the utmost exertion
.:elair the fault of the Government, and to make up
ei? delay, and to prevent public mischief. The
slent the proclamation was issued it was obeyed. What
111 had they to suppose that a similar proclamation
Flier would not have allayed all the anxiety
e,—arta that arose from those meetings? Was it that
:Prelkrred destroying an individual to preserving
et.`ll.„et Ireland?—(Cheer's.) Was it for the pur-
he,„°' laying a trap to catch a political opponent?
r 4 utre willing to let the spirit of rebellion grow up
reet,4Y months. They were willing to permit dis-
tarist, and they made no attempt to arrest
togress,
They had prepared themselves with
r. to Put
Ito „down violence when it should break out
saz,°',.:n
tacts, but they had permitted that spirit of
us 11;..111, to. spread and increase. Had they done
fon for the purpose of giving their reporters
fleesrPrtity of catching heated and inflammotory sen-
tet tha were uttered here and there, and now and
Tius that a proper course of policy to pursue ?
eetiri,e„s"a,r.,) If the Government had felt that the
;ter wnich had been held in Ireland were incon-
:.ei, it with the public interest and public safety, they
itthentvdor,hdaidvet.hmeayde an effort to repress them ? What,
do ? They permitted the people of
affable to suppose that those meetings were unobjec-
r,, OA lawful. They were not disturbed. They
eland
Permitted to extend and grow, and the people of'
`tvere thus seduced into the idea that these meet-
ge-
were consistent with the law. This was a serious

'ea,-,a"against the Government. It had been laid down
,eat -.•ne Bench that men who had attended the last
te,.,41g could betaken as having adopted all the senti-
;;,t Promulgated at the other meetings for the pre-
ea;sanine months ? Thus an innocent man who hap-
ie -- he present at the last meeting found himself in
• sitation of being charged with the adoption of
%lent
et:d expressions expressions which had snb-
, the parties to a very serious prosecution.
ad' °'s allowed upon all hands that if Mr. O'Connell
eis. 40t. exerted himself to preserve the peace at Clon-
-4 crisis would have arrived, which he could not ac-
tin tfiti.e Goverument of contemplating, and he was cer-
at. I.,"att the poor people who crowded there never
SleaCoacrd.,—(Cheers.) 'The meeting was to take place
clock 4Y, and the proclamation was issued at three
.aild
e 6013 the Saturday.—(Cheers.) Not all the a orid
tent Zul'ince him that the course takenby the Govern-
) Fai " as irepartial, or that there was any intention
.nw that they were disposed to govern Ireland imid-
aatw,
. •aeeT_Y----(Cheers.) Mr. O'Connell felt, and he would
`o i'ven wrong if he did not feel, that upon him,
.ocr rest the responsibility if any evil consequences
.1:1 R7,llBned---7(llear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.)
Ye-„'",°_n
,as the Ministerial proclamation was issued Mr.
4 ta„'ed Obeyed it and he did the most difficult thing
lalitito//ci°lld, he compelled' a discontented and irritable
Chere ~_e to be as patient as he was himself.— (Cheers.)
as ill nad been many meetings, the result. of which
lee etged in one which might have been included. in
lonet..ntait of the indictment.—(llear, hear.) The Right
able the Secretary for the Home Depart-
lee.t
O aaa had said that he did not stand there
i iencl the Coercion Bill of the late Government.
ioee,.'tir_ll. Wilde) should have thought that the Right
aay fronet, having been a party to that, was not
kb g°ng to shrink from the responsibility which at-.
ts era to it. Deeply us that Bill had to be lented
essiect:Lssity at the time was undoubted ; and. thath ne_-
elva.: ma 4 been mainly created by the Tories t em
airi,;;" The Whigs having come into power after a long
ettieef T°l7 misgovernment, it took a long time to
to til3:tlie wrongs they had inflicted. And he strongly
, "Im._, it would be found a much more easy matter
(CheZln, the Coerciv n Bill than those prosecutions—
eo, raru'a') Such a law might be called for as a tem
tion,___,4 measure, but it formed no part of the Constitu-
C"ora Atlear, hear.) The evil lasted for a time, but the
atitution was not hrt.— (heers.o when the tit, 6 to stretch the law,u as theC Govern) meßntt had done in tiberPtesent instance, for the destruction of public
otviiiA, they then inflictt d a wound—ayeaan incurable
tltaat -Z--11pon the Constitution.—(Cheers.) Let them
ether:" the various Bills, Coercion Bills, Arms Bills, and
to tip' Which necessity required them to pass from time
silow,,t when the period arrived at which they could
';'etie,.,u-cra to expire, the evil was at an end, and the
t 111.3 ''' Constitution remained unhurt.—(Cheers.) But
340,4'N seeution would remain as a precedent, and when Alt W to tile Many bad ones which atolreaex d
4ntt ~.8t,.°17, it would give an example Ministers to do
,risk "Inch he sincerely believed it was far from the
etti °I the Might Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel)
most
at-
ao.4* But,: the precedent. was furnished, and
as-
stli •37 'l° (Sir Thos. Wilde) looked upon it, as on.e,
0 Connell
had eon sir with public liberty. If Mr. .
his
tpeeet_
_elsed sedition—had apol:en sedition
tics „...71, Publisb„ed it in his writings, or practisedinit. in
he
peuour conductor if he had by any other means excited
tli!ar.ts,pleet the
tontent and adisaffection, then, by all
sear •) If he had by any indict
verawe the Go .
.44
amenable e let him for it.—(Hear,
any illegal means attempted to
•f the ea, ir t ernment or disturb the peace and safety
him, he repeated, be indicted. He
1,., to the law for his conduct; but
' hot let them twist the law so as to make
char e
tateesg of conspiracy, and that under circum-
titati which might be afterwards used to prevent
hat\ °n.r., by even the most legal means.—(Hear,
citerfa, ills Honourable and Learned Friend the Soli-
lark dleneral had said something last evening about the
debts as
having something to do with indict-
ateats els well as the present one. Not such indict-
latit ,_ his
on which he was now to comment. He
tvas,ll:-2 is Hon. and Learned Friend whether it was
9itt 6, true that the terms of indictment under which
1e eoennuell had been tried had never come under
it? Aslideration of any one who had not lamented
te Nee roe" Westminster-hall it was detested, and
le
appliedPliedver cases as the one under consideration was now o in this country.—(Cheers ) Would his eta/4nd Learned Friend the Attorney- General at-
asaasthangland to indict a man, and get a verdict
%ilk; utna, for a speech he had never uttered, or for a
,rdetiaartu in a newspaper which he had never seen?—
ttlestie eers.) He asked his Learned Friend the plain
,4,1,... 4 whether, in his long experience, he had ever.
nati:eltiliat form of indictment even referred to with-
',..robati,,,,g, sttputtised in the strongest terms of disap-
• "rat of"'"—(l3oud cheers.) Whoever attended to the
siae, . that indictment, and followed it up by a con-
410r.
ehief Justice''' of the law, as laid down by the Lord
Preeitt, Would readily be able to see and to ap-
Ntspi: it'S character. It charged that the traversers
keans ed to excite disaffection and hatred, and, by
3.l4g44thtuf Physical force, endeavoured to overawe the
t_nstie, te- The law as laid doe n by the Lord Chief
,01 ffe4,wbas,
ith.at it. persons associated. and. combined
ned t Y. tneir joint efforts, an illegal abject, or com-
the), 0. etteet a le al object by illegal means, then were
Ilia gat lty of
a breachg ofj the law. He (Sir T. Wilde)
its _ not exce t h4Pplieati 1) to that law, but he did except to
. th • not ta °II.--(Hear, hear.) Now, he asked, h.ad or
f-7ketrz.ie ge people of Ireland a right to meet to discuss
411, ed-ibveas.,nces and obtain a redress of them? He pre-
th-ar,...edres,, right to meet and discuss, and take measures
a,- .cret, " was not questioned?a--(Marks of assent from
-etiatrYklienches.) Why, did they ei er hear of a
1414 nee aiZetne discussion of grievances where there
Ltht at wits ontent Where there was no discontent
l7te pi.i the object of the meeting?—(Hear, hear.) Was
tneei.vilego of the people only to meet to excite con-
); They 44°4 eerjg.inat, aftection?:—(Cheers and laughter.)
eto might , a•eite disaffection in a manner to make. it
4 Win but it requiredgreat care in a ude when
it"'
t wi"
° ought not to ex-
it& to excite and what
,_ -
nell laccnteat
/4 Was, in f • But the indictment against Mr. 0 Con ia the trial act- a Perfect indictment for high treason.
,;;;hieit.'lol Lord George Gordon, the very words
tZch Le'_;B...indictrnent was framed were the words in
ti-`4,, IA wast'a.alansfield laid down the law, that such at-
di:ll etts. ul_gh treason; and this had been followed by
tbttnleat for it plerefore was a complete and perfect in-
effenaly Pecs high treason. But were these traversers
Qeetiil,
eir,ons in the empire who had, by their joint
en ucavoured to raise discontent and dis-
`tea ' and b
dtai‘_ ea the 1 ' y overawing the Legislature. to
' • What ill tefearewneeinth con•empt ? What had been
...
ht th answer to the poor-law.—(Loud cheers.)
tat 11 was to
t oils, Nvhen be made by certain. Hon. Members
flies t,,,,,,,, questioned as to their couduct and
iilliZ said of the the poor-law?—(Cheers.) What was
eke b, .1-7 Times newspaper ? What of the papers
• th the s ~ "'ir• Oastler ?---(Great cheers.) Let them
t h . Peeehes
f •when upon
pot_
.ustie,..s 0 certain Hon. Members
ti 11,.! law .: ;. or at public meetings, in reference to the
143471%.,.1et
trt them •
"Ike Mr. astler'sO speeches and
tthi:treerdirrsi.: to
aak lave
otnhsep
(CO was as clear e ltvw as administered to Mr. O'Connell,
i Times'r
a y
tee slave Looktra at What h as ever was hatched.—
ad been written and said of
~_eatk/w-'es--a4e, and of and on various other public
kfe e'l one aye, and exciting ill-will and discontent
irit_ NEI the
..laneti of her Majesty's subjects and another.
40:1!!t, thatiltglish Parliament did not consider their
1/411 t.Oslate 1, had no sYmpathy with them, that it did
iw at if he
~/' their benefit ; and he had aright to say
theZt the peou;iloietTed sit... lie had a right, in order to
nth, ri, to ° petition that House for a repeal of
re,tt to be 11.! those arguments, if he helieved the
"kt's he was 'blichievous. But if he used those argu-
,e several things, ta ti Now • guilty of this act of conspiracy and sedi-
ti_vireletitolte ' in describing the indictmen-t for- conspiring
u ert ll's." It tugs, the Learned Judge gives this
the alas, butts true the indictment sets forth certain
tracts,
tZureeesisno one of these acts need be proved—
hare theoaaed in the agreement, not the acts."
t still
thet r not one of these acts -should be
lyie,4,, g bt, s reversers might be guilty of conspiracy.
rn2peatil'utternode rendered the acts comparatively
etkent- frot
„ea)** torso the jury "you may infer the
w these
ns acting in common ; and

if you find a newspaper writing articles in favour of
Mr. O'Connell and reporting his speeches, you may use
that against the newspaper to prove they were conspiring
with Mr, O'Connell, and you may use Mr. O'Connell's
sneech, as reported, as evidence of his conspiring with
de newspaper." Now, nobody- could approve of the fan •
gnage that had been used by the lion. and Learned
Member who was the subject of the prosecution. No
one could approve of the meetings that had been called
together, because it did not appear that they they were
calculated to effect any good bone fide object.—(Hear,
hear, from the Ministerial benches.) They were un-
doubtedly dangerous, not from any intention on the part
of the Wn. and Learned Gentleman, or on the part of
the people, to break the peace ; but such a number of
persons meeting together was so liable to sudden in
fiammation—so likely to be operated on by unexpected
causes; that they were likely to endanger the public
peace.--(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) He
also much disapproved of the Hon. aud Learned Gentle-
man referring to the old stories of supposed English
oppression, for the purpose of leading to the conclusion
that England was unfavourable to the Irish, and that
the continuance of the union was not likely to be pro-
ductive of happiness to Ireland. Ile disapproved of this
language, just as much as he disapproved of the frequent
referrences to " Fox's Book of Martyrs" by those Hon.
Gentlemen who set up the " No Popery" cry. One
was just as improper as the other, but no one, had
thought of indicting those Hon. Gentlemen. But what
England had to beware of was this—she had to see that
in cases which might excite disapprobation, the law was
not violated or perverted to what might be used, on
other occasions, for a totally different object. Now, an
indictment for holding a public meeting calculated to
excite discontent and disaffection was a most dangerous
indictment to trust to the hands of the Government in
a country so divided by party as Ireland. It was a form
of indictment which imposed on the Government that
used it the deepest responsibility for a carerul watch
over the administration of justice. lie had referred to
that part of the indictment charging the traversers with
an attempt to overawe the Legislature. In his judgment
it was as great a perversion of the law as could be
imagined. He had already alluded to the indictment
against Lord George Gordon. He was indicted for
overawing the Legislature. In his case, 20,000 persons
assembled in St. George's Fields, there having been
riots before that meeting. These 20,000 persons beset
the House of Commons, forced their way into the lobby,
and personally threatened the Members, so that it was
scarcely possible for them to get access to the House,
and they kept up their threatenings to such a degree that
the House could not proceed with its business. For this
he was indicted for attempting to overawe the Legislature,
for putting them in apprehension of immediate personal
violence. But what had they here ? Numbers of per-
sons meeting at a distance across the Channel, t time
when Parliament wits not sitting—when there was no
apprehension, and no possibility of its Members suffering
from personal violence. But the Hon. Gentleman said
that overawing the Legislature meant such an exhibi-
tion of numbers as would lead the Government to sup-
pose that, at a future day, by the operation of their
opinion, or if they liked by their acts, the Legislature
might think it advisable to pass a certain measure. He
would appeal to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to tell
them on what grounds was it that he passed the Eman-
cipation Bill?—(Loud cheers.) Upon that express
ground—public opinion. Now, how could they get a
great expression of public opinion? Could people send
their opinions to a meeting, and leave their bodies at
home? He contended that overawing the Legislature
was causing an apprehension of physical force to be
directed against the persons of the Members. The ap-
prehension of a distant rebellion was not overawing the
Legislature. What meeting might they not say was an
exhibition of great numbers for the purpose of
overawing the Legislature ? It had been said that
the mere numbers of a meeting made it illegal. Why,
for the same reason, they might as well say that some
races were illegal—that the Queen's coronation was il-
legal. It was numbers, combined with, other circum-
stances, such as the object of the meeting, and whether
-
its conduct was calculated to excite alarm in minds rea-
sonably firm. Look at the meetings they had had in
England. What great alteration of any great public
grievance was ever obtained without agitation ?—(Hear,
hear.) Did Government ever alter that of which the
people did not complain? All Goverments were and
ought to be conservative.—(Hear, hear.) It was
for the sarety of the people that they were so,
therefore they did not alter that with which the people
were contented. But sometimes Governments required
too much impelling. With all respect to the Right
Hon. Baronet, he thought that he had required too
much before he granted Catholic Emancipation. They
ought not to wait till rebellion was at their heels before
they altered that which ought to be altered, and if it
ought not to be altered, he took it for granted it would
not be. The indictment for overawing the Legislature,
therefore, on the ground of meetings being held across
the Channel at a time when Parliament was not sitting,
was not an overawing of the Legislature within the
law. The Noble Lord, the Member for London,
had defined the origin of the law of conspiracy
to be one applied to a private conspiracy to
charge others with committing crimes.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord said that this prosecution was con•
ducted according to the common law of the kingdom.
What was that common law ? Ho believed that they
would find the liberties of England buried in their
Courts by this common law.—(Hear, hear.) This re-
minded him of an anecdote related in Roger North's
"Life of Lord Guilford." Seeing that King James was
in the habit of conversing with, and confiding in, Judge
Jeffries, he represented to the King that Jeffries was
a man of a very violent temper, and very dangerous to
confide in, and said that he himself would do all that the
King wanted by law if he left the matter to him.—
(Cheers.) All that a Lad and profligate Government
might desire could be done by the law of indictment.—
(Hear.) What had been the course pursued with regard
to this indictment ? He could not do better than de-
scribe it in the language of one of the public journals.
—(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read a pas-
sage from the Morning Post, to the effect that making
newspaper proprietors responsible for words not spoken
by them, and making public speakers responsible for
articles not written by them, produced so confused a
charge that it ought not to be brought against any
subjects of a free Constitution, and a verdict obtained
under such circumstances would produce no moral effect
whatever.—The reading of the passage was followed
by loud cheers.) Such was the character of this indict-
ment. If the design of the Government was to put
down what they called agitation, and to punish the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman for illegal acts which he com-
mitted, it could have been accomplished without such an
indictment, by charging each of the traversers in-
dividually, and making each responsible for his
own acts alone. But here was the press of the
country, which could only exist by giving public infor-
mation on interesting events, prosecuted for a conspi-
racy, for associating to procure legal objects by illegal
means, those illegal means consisting of reporting violent
speeches made in the absence of the proprietors of the
public journals in which they were reported. The law
of conspiracy was grossly wrested in this case, and a
bad precedent was created.—(Cheers.) Here were
editors prosecuted for speeches which they never read,
and speakers prosecuted for articles which they never
wrote.—(Hear.) The law as understood was this, that
there must be an agreement between the persons charged
with conspiracy. Of course they might prove agree-
ment by a variety of means, and it was not necessary
that the agreement should be actually proved by some
person who was present, for if that were necessary,
conspiracy would be a perfectly safe crime. They might
prove it from acts and circumstances. As, for example,
if they found, as in the case of the 0. P. riot, persons
with the letters 0. P. in their hats going to the theatre,
creating a tumult, and interrupting the per-
formance, it showed a design from which it
might be reasonably inferred that there was a previous
agreement between the parties; but it was a perversion
of the law to treat as a proof of conspiracy that parties
assembled together at public meetings with a common
attempt. They might as well say that it was evidence
of conspiracy if the pit of a theatre had simultaneously
hissed.—(Cheers.) As he said before, it was not neces-
sary to prove previous agreement. If there were such
circumstances attending meetings as that persons met
in the same place on successive days with the same em-
blems, they might infer a common agreement. But no
distinction of the kind was made here, for the jury
were told, in the first place, in express terms,
that no one of the overt acts need be proved.
They need not, however, it was said, have proof of their
agreement and so on, but they might infer that from
these very acts ; or they were first told that those
acts were not to be proved at all, but that the whole
crime consisted in the agreement, and then they were
referred back again to the acts in evidence of the agree-
ment. The indictment was for endeavouring to excite
public discontent and disaffection ; no attempt was
made to assign the limit within which Irishmen and
Englishmen might manifest dissatisfaction, and that
which amounted to a legal crime. The indictment was,
in itself, a most dangerous proceeding.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not say that its form was new, buthe did say that
its application to the facts of the case was perfectly new.—
(Hear.) Now how had this indictment been prosecuted?
—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He did arraign
the cohduct of this prosecution, most undoubtedly. He
was not at all disposed to say anything unkind or illibe-
ral, or disrespectful in the slightest degree of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ire-
land ; but he did feel it his duty to urge a most serious
complaint against the conduct of this prosecution.—
(Hear.) He said that the Government were implicated
used the word Government, not as denoting the in-
dividuals of whom it was composed, but the Government
generally responsible—and he maintained that they were
most seriously implicated.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. O'Con-
nell, he averred and stated with the utmost firmness,
had no fair trial.—(Great cheering from the Opposition
benches.) His Hon. and Learned. Friend the Solicitor-
General said last night that. that was no proper place
to discuss how far the verdict was consistent with
the evidence—an observation which he (Sir T. W.) took
the liberty of cheering. He then went on to say—having
said it would be very improper to discuss it there—that
he defied anybody to get up and say that the verdict was
not consistent with the evidence.—(Laughter.) He (Sir T.
Wilde) had heard some new constitutional doctrines in
that House. He was happy to see the Noble Lord
(Lord Stanley) in his place. lie begged to ask, for in-
formation, where the Noble Lord had learned that new
constitutional principle, that it was indecent in a lawyer
to arraign in that House the conduct of the judges ?
(Hear, hear.) He had heard from his Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General, that there were Acts of Parlia-
ment which they had no right to discuss there. NI, ith
all respect, both for the Noble Lord and for his Hon.
and Learned Friend, he begged to say that a more out-
rageous or unfounded doctrine he had never heard. Pray,
Sir, continued the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
what is the first duty of this House ? To watch the
administration of justice in this country. You had—
whether you have now in form, I do not know—but you
had a Committee of Justice, and I say, with all respect

for the Noble Lord, that it is the especial duty of this
House, to watch over the conduct of the judges. The
public were deeply interested in the character and con-
duct of the judges. It was of essential importance that
those criminals who had misconducted themselves, and
were tried for the crimes which they had committed,
should be able to respect the judges before whom they
were arraigned.—(Hear, hear.) The object of a con-
viction was to operate upon the individual beneficially on
his future conduct, and that could never be done if he
had no respect for the judge before whom he was tried.
—(Hear.) Although he admitted, therefore, that it
was exceedingly improper to make indecent remarks
with respect to judges, in the spotlessness of whose cha-
racter the lower orders—those who are most often
brought under their jurisdiction—were so deeply inte-
rested; yet he maintained that, on an occasion like
this, when the question was whether the Government
had committed a great error in the conduct of a pro-
secution, when they had to consider whether that pro-
secuCon had been fairly conducted; and when the
Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet talked loudly
of the vindication of the dignity of the law, they ought
not to have their mouths stopped by being told that, if
they entered upon the subject, it would be a profanation
of the law ?—(Cheers.) This was not a common case.—
(Hear, hear.) He hoped that parts of this case would
become subjects for specific inquiry. It was in-
volved in the greatest suspicion. He said
there was more than suspicion that unfair play had been
practised.—(Hear, hear.) How was he to know whether
he could agree with the statement of the Noble Lord and
his Hon. and. Learned Friend—that the dignity of the
law had been vindicated ?—(Hear, hear.) Was he to
take it for granted upon their assertion? He had the
greatest respect for them, but they would excuse him if,
in a matter of that sort, he presumed, though a lawyer—
(Laughter)—to entertain and express an opinion as to
the conduct of the judges. But why;were lawyers to be
excluded?—(Hear, hear.) Was it because they were
su.ppo,ed to know something about it ?—(Hear, hear,
and laughter.) It was strong language to use to a
Member of that House to charge him with indecency in
remarking upon the conduct of a judge in the dis-
charge of his Parliamentary duty. Mr. O'Connell's case
mixed itself up with the public interest—it by no means
rested upon an ordinary footing. The good or the evil
which they had done depended upon the character of
the prosecution.—(Hear, hear.) If they had prosecuted
Mr. O'Connell, though he might have been guilty of
some offences; if they had profaned the temple of
justice instead of vindicating its honour; if they had sent
him to trial expressly to be convicted, then he said they
had done that., which he was charged:with having done,
but done with infinitely greater effect. They had de-
stroyed the confidence of the Irish people in the admi-
Listration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Learned
Judge laid down the definition of the law
of conspiracy, if he (Sir Thomas Wilde) might
presume to say so, with perfect confidence, and he stated
that he had the concurrence of his brother Judges in
the doctrines which he so laid down. That had nothing
whatever to do with that Learned Judge's course in the
summing up of the case.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear"
from the Opposition.) If he expressed himself strongly
on this subject, he had no intention of departing from
the respect which was due to that Learned Judge.
But lie asked if the summing up of the Learned Judge
had not rather the characteristics of a speech of counsel
than of what it was intended to be. It was deficient in
all that belonged to its proper office.—(Hear, hear.) He
begged to call the Right Hon. Baronet's attention to the
circumstance that Mr. O'Connell's defence consisted in
this—at least one part of his case was—" You charge
me with uttering certain expressions with a certain in-
tent. It is true, you have selected certain passages and
sentences from my speeches, but I call on you to read
the whole of those speeches ; and when you read the
whole, those particular sentences will be qualified." Now
what man's speeches could stand the test of particular
sentences extracted here and there ? " Read the whole,"
said the counsel for the defence ; and accordingly the
greater portion of the time occupied by the trial was
taken up in reading the whole of the speeches. Yet not
one sentence of what the counsel for the defence
got read, had formed a portion of the Learned
Judge's summing-up.—(Hear, hear.) The Learned
Solicitor-General had got the particular passages
on which the Government—and he did not use the word
in an offensive sense, he meant those to whom the con-
duct of the prosecution was intrusted—the Solicitor-Gene-
ral had got the particular passages on which the Govern-
ment relied, selected and printed, and as he read them
in reply, the Learned Judge said, " hand them up
to me." Up they went, and they were read and summed
tip to the jury.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition
benches.) Such parts as were most violent were thus
read without any parts which qualified them, and which
formed part of the traversers ' defence.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Sir T. Wilde) was one of those who laboured under
the infirmity of believing, that the greatest injustice
was done to persons charged with any crime or offence,
by the accuser having got. in his right of reply, the last
word. Let ever so powerful a speech be made for a
prisoner in his defence—let the evidence
i be ever so fa-
vourable to his case, yet when the speech n reply comes
and after it the Learned Judge's summing up, he must,
say that juries—who were not generally composed of
persons who were taught t to bear in mind and
analyse speeches—were almost certain to have
the speech for the defence entirely obliterated
from their minds, and to have quite forgotten it. Those
paragraphs, that were used in the course of the prosecu-
tor's case, were again read, at least a fortnight after the
passages which qualified, explained, and softened them
down, and gave evidence of the motives with which they
bad been uttered.—(Hear.) No distinct directions were
given marking the boundary of legitimate agitation. He
used the word agitation as a short one to express his
meaning. There was no direction to distinguish that
right which could never be too narrowly watched, whe-
ther in the case of Mr. O'Connell or anybody else. The
Government had watched those men for nine months,
on a subject upon which they were deeply interested,
and placed in a situation of great excitement, and on
which their feelings warmed by collision—as the feelings
of an Irishman were always excited when he' talked of
his country. Why, let them adopt a similar course with
even any Honourable Member of that House who spoke
in debate, and what would be the consequence ? He
would take, for instance, one of the most amiable Mem-
bers in the House—the Noble Lord—(the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was supposed to allude to Lord J.
Russell)—and would any one dream that the respect
and esteem in which he knew his Noble Friend
was held out of that House, would be damaged by
any accidental expression he might let fall
in the heat of the debate ? Well, then, those
passages which could have modified the parts
relied on by the Crown having been read, a whole
fortnight elapsed, daring which, speeches of Counsel
were delivered for five or six hours a day each, and
how was it possible that, when they had been omitted
from the summing up, they could have that effect upon
the jury which it was intended, and which they ought
to have had ? Then with respect to the summing up, to.
which he prayed attention. The Rev. Mr. Tierney, one
of the traversers, had attended one of these meetings,
and adopted all that had gone before. He had, also, a
little pet meeting of his own.—(Hear, hear, from Mr.
Shell.) Language of similar import to that used on
former occasions was used upon this, and yet the strong
passages alone were summed up, and those which would
modify their effect were left out. Was that the way in
which a judge should vindicate the dignity of the law,
and cause it to have a conciliatory effect upon the
minds of the Irish people ? Was it not rather calcu-
lated to give them the idea of the traversers being per-
secuted than that they were fairly dealt with ? He was
mistaken if much did not remain to be discussed with
respect to this trial. He took it for granted that the
verdict would not be permitted to stand without being
impugned before the proper tribunal. But that was not
all. The House had been managed by some dexterity
to be led into a certain degree of confusion respecting
the composition of the particular jury. He begged to
call the attention of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
the Attorney-General for Ireland, particularly to this
part of of the case. He must say that, with all respect
to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he grossly mistook
that which was the interest of the Government—he used
the word Government for country—respecting the con-
duct of those prosecutions. First of all there was con-
siderable ambiguity relating to this part of the subject.
The old jury-list was thought very inadequate to fur-
nish the means of a fair trial. The traversers, there-
fore, took proper measures to have the jury-list made
up for the year 1844. The House had already learned
that it was the custom of certain parish officers to make
returns of the persons qualified to act as jurors in the
respective districts. They then went to the Hon. and
Learned Recorder of Dublin, and it was his duty to as-
certain all those persons that were qualified to serve,
and to distinguish between those qualified to serve on
common and on special juries. With respect to special
juries, some remarks were made by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet which certainly struck him (Sir T. Wilde)
with surprise, and that was, that the striking
of a special jury was an advantage to the traversers.
Why if he were to make such an assertion in West-
minster Hall they would laugh in his face.—(Cheers.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman said they had done this out
of mercy to the defendants—because with a special jury
each party struck off by turns, but with the common
jury the law officers of the Crown could order as many
to stand by as they pleased. They knew very well that
if they had a common jury they could not have ordered
men to stand by as they pleased.—(Loud cheers.) They
knew very well that if with a panel of 72 they had, when
the name of John Thomas was called, ordered John
Thomas to stand aside they would have been asked
why ? If they had ordered another man to stand by
they would again be asked why ? How long would
you have dared to have gone on in such a course?—(Loud
cheers.) They dared not to have done it—(Counter
cheering)—and it was because they dared not do it that
they had struck a special jury.—(Loud cheers.) They
struck off the twelve names of a special jury in a private
room. They must have challenged the cammon jury-
men in the open Court.—(Cheers.) They did not try
the defendants before a common jury because they were
afraid.—(Cheers.) They chose a special jury because
they could make sure that there should be no Catholic
on it. They could not avoid that on a common jury.
The thing had been dexterously and designedly ma-
naged for the purpose of sending these men to convic-
tion—(Cheers)—by the underlings who had struck and
prepared the jury list.—(Hear.) Those lists had been
settled by the Recorder, who, as he went through the
list, placed a mark against the names for the purpose of
distinguishing special jurymen from common jurymen.
The revision of those lists must have occasioned the
Right Hon. Gentleman considerable anxiety. Never
had
he trhe ev Cs ouron owa
sf Da
tu bl
el inng
tbeforempprl ee st
ee
dn e
and
n sdu
wc hh e a scene. n
arpl
cation was made by the traversers to see the lists they
were told that the Right Lion. Gentleman had taken
them with him to England.
Mr. SHAW—That is not so. It is quite untrue.
Sir T. WILDE did not doubt for one moment what
the Right Hon. Gentleman said, but be (Sir Thomas
Wilde), in the cause of the people of England, relied upon

the affidavit which had been produce] upon the trial.—
(Loud cheers.) He did not know whether the Right
Hon. Gentleman was unapprised of the nature of that
affidavit—(Cheers)—or whether he was absent from
Dublin at the time of the trials, bui, that affidavit had
been read in the open Court.
Mr. SH A.W—Whose affidavit ?

Sir THOS. WILDE was surprised at being called
ugon in that manner to state whose affidavit it was, and
when it" had been read. It was the affidavit of the at-
torney for the traversers, and Mr. Mahoney stated that
on applying at the office for copies of the lists as re-
vised by the Right Hon. Gentleman--
Mr. SI i ElL—The parochial lists.
Sir THOS. WILDE—The parochial lists—lists from
which the general list was framed—he received for an-
swer that the Right Hon. Gentleman hade gone to Eng-
land and taken the lists with him.
Mr. SIIAW—I never did.
Sir THOS. WILDE did not mean to say that he had
—he would only say that it had been sworn to in Court,
and not been contradicted. (The, lion. and Learned
Gentleman searched for some among his papers,
but was unable to find the affidavit.) Pe feared he had
it not with him, but he would state the ;übstance of it. It
was the affidavit of Mr. Mahoney read, on the application
t o quash the proceedings, on the ground that the jury
had
been strucx from' an imperfect list, and in which he
stated, that as soon as the revision was over application
had been made, on the part of the traversers, at the
Right Hon. Gentleman's office for a sight of the jury
lists, and that the answer was, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had gone to England and that he had taken the
jury lists with him.—(Cheers.) Notice had been given
to the traversers to attend to join in striking the 48
jurymen, and up to that time they had never seen the
jury lists.—(Cheers.) When they went to strike, a
question occurred respecting those lists, as it appeared
that the list from which the 48 had been struck did not
contain the names of all those persons whom the Right
Hon. Gentleman had adjudged as qualified to serve.—
(Loud cheers.) They had proceeded however to strike
the special jury, under protest, when an application was
made to the Queen's Bench to quash the panel, on the
ground of the incompleteness of the lists. On that occa-
sion affidavits had been made in support of the
application, and he would read the affidavit of
Mr. Mahoney, which he feared he had mislaid,
but which he had since found. (Hear, hear.)
(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
read the affidavit sworn by Mr. Mahoney, on the occa-
sion alluded to. The deponent stated that the revision
of the lists commenced on the 14th, and way c fished
on the 23d ; that the Attorney-General oiled
to have the 11th December fixed as the da ':fie trial
at bar-; that applica tie- was 0- i,c6l tone
the trial on account or ttu imperfect state or the jury
lists ; and that eventually an order had been made that
the trial should commence on the 15th January, and
that the jury should be taken from the lists for 1844 ;
that when the revision had been finished on the 23d
November. the Recorder should have Caused the general
list of the proper persons qualified to be drawn out,
and should have delivered the list to the Clerk of the
Peace, who should have copied the same into the
jury book, and delivered the same to the Sheriff.
The deponent made application to the Clerk of the
Peace, at his office, to ascertain if the said books were
finally prepared, and was informed that the Recorder was
absent in London, and that he had with him several do-
cuments necessary for the preparation of the said jurors'
list—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from the Opposition)
—and from which, when fairly delivered by the Re-
corder, the Clerk of the Peace made his jurors' book.
He was at length informed that the list was not de-
livered up until the 29th of December ; and on the same
day the Clerk of the Peace caused the jurors' book to be
delivered to the Sheriff. How was the office of the
Clerk of the Peaee conducted ?—(Hear, hear.) How
was so important an office managed if when, on applica-
tion to the proper functionary, he was told that the list
was not there, but that the Recorder had the list in
London?—(Hear.)
Mr. SHAW—Not the list.
Sir T. WILDE—The Right Hon. Gentleman may cavil at
the word list, or at any other name—but that the list--
Mr. SHAW—No. Not the list.—(Cries of " Order.")
Sir T. WILDE—Sir, it is named the list, and the list was
absent.
Mr. SHAW—I repeat what I have already stated.—(Cries
of " Order, order," and confusion.)
Sir 'l'. WILDE—Then I will read from the affidavit again.
" He (deponent) was informed that the Recorder was absent
in London, and had with him several documents necessary
fo"11L-ed(lianedar'vehheeamr.e)nt cries of
f
roAstiihrrrde.
Tepsr.:HewoprAaidrwLearDt7i,o2nT—bo
Rightttelebilselt—jthurelßlelnste. Hon. Gentleman again he
I
may carp at the word list—let him call it document or paper,
or anything else ho pleases, the substance is the same.—( Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") Is there any doubt of it? Has it
not been sworn to by the officer, who says—" The documents
necessary for the preparation of the jury list the Recorder had
with him in London."—Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Op-
position.) Of all the gross faults ever committed, there never
itw wasaos more
greosismp important theerotvhtaanthis. prThoeeeerdeioga never
should be b
was atariaolvaet
suspi-
cion which
than this.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite clear that the do-
cuments had not been in their proper place.—( Hear.) They
were not accessible at the proper times to the proper parties.
How did that happen ? How came those officials to invent
so false a statement ?—(Hear, hear.) Who dared to behave so
improperly as to say that the Recorder had the list in London
when hf had not ?—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and ironical
cheers from the Opposition.) Why was it that when the
Recorder had left all things in order in his office, those per-
sons who were entitled to inspect them were not allowed to do
so, but the public officer made fictitious statements?-( Hear,
hear.) How dare they say that the Recorder had the lists in
London when he had not?—( Hear, hear.) Yes, he repeated
the question. He would again read from the affidavit :—" When
a summons to strike off a special jury had been served, the de-
ponent lost no time in applying to the Sheriff for a copy of the
special jury panel, and which should have contained the names
of all persons properly qualified to serve on the jury ; that the
Sheriff declined complying with deponent's application unless
with the consent of the counsel for the Crown and the counsel
for the traversers.” What light had the Crown to interfere to
prevent the traversers from seeing the document ?—( Hear,
hear.) Why should the public officer interfere with the
Crown, or why should the Crown interfere to prevent the tra-
versers from obtaining their right ?—( Hear. )
Mr. SHAW—They had no right.—(Order.)
Sir T. WILDE—Sir, I submit that they had a right--
(Hear, hear.) As British subjects about to be put upon their
trial, they had a right to see it.
Mr. SHAW--No.
Sir T. WILDE—I won't pledge myself to it, but I believe
they had a right.
Mr. SHAW—Certainly not.—(Load cries of " Order.")
Sir T. WILDE--I believe a recent Act of Parliament gives
that right.

Mr. SHAW—Decidedly not.—( Renewed cries of " Order,"
and confusion. )
Sir T. WILDE repeated his impression, and proceeded to
say that if the documents were public why were they not to
be seen ?—( Hear, hear.) T
if the law were all his own he Right 'Hon Gentleman, even
subject had not a right way, would surely not say that the
to see the jury list, which had been
made out according to the Recorder's adjudication. What Hon.
Hon. Member would refuse it,
rsa; it ought to be refused ?
( Hear, hear.) What honourable or honest motive could there
be for the refusal ?—( Hear, hear.) What security could there
be for the independent dischargeof their duty as public officers,
if they required the sanction of the public officers
do their duty? Every in this trial in order to
ste
same features.—( Hear, hear.) The deponent applied to Mr.
Kemmis for his consent,and that
which he to give;
refusal was followed by so muchdeclinedirregularity—such
palpable irregularity—as not to leave any character
fur fairness or impartiality in the proceedings. The
deponent next stated that he went to the office of Mr.
Walter Bourne, for the purpose of striking a jury, and Mr.
Whiteside applied for the traversers to have a postponement,
on the ground that they had no opportunity of examining the
jury list, and that they were therefore unprepared to enter
upon the matter at the time. The adjournment was agreed
to by Mr. Brewster until both parties could get a copy of the
jury list from the Sheriff, and the 3d of January was fixed.
On examining the list on that day, it was found that the names
of many qualified persons had been omitted from the special
jury list, who had been admitted by the Recorder at his revi-
sion ; and the deponent, in company with one of the traversers,
went again to the office of the said Walter Bourne, and pro-
tested against any proceeding respecting striking a jury,
on the ground that there had been a gross suppression of
the names of persons qualified to be placed upon the
jury, and the deponent was convinced that a wilful and cor-
ruptte suppression had taken place." This was a portion of h
affidavit of the traversers' attorney before the special wasjury
struck, stating that there had been corrupt and wilful
omis-
sions of certain names. Now, forsooth, the Crown, to
be sure,
was most anxious to have a fair jury list made out !—(Loud
laughter.) He would ask, judging from the reports of what
had taken place in the Court, if ever any human being had ever
observed a stronger affidavit? He knew something of the law,
and he would say that no common case, such as the Noble
Lord thought would furnish a rule of precedent for an at-
torney, was applicable to the present case. Why, if it had been
a common action for 5/. in one of the miner courts,
if the attorney on either side made an affidavit,
stating that there bad been corrupt practices in striking
the jury, the Court would at once put off the trial.—(Loud
cheers.) But there being a great Slate prosecution to vindi-
cate the dignity of the law—( Hear, hear)—a trial which was
to produce a great moral effect, an affidavit was put in by
the traversers agent imputing corruption to the mode in
which the jury had been constituted, whilst the Crown never
made the slightest inquiry into the charge. lie thought this
course was likely to lower the respect and confidence of
the public in the fair and impartial administration of justice in
any case, but how much the more so was it the case the
present instance ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He thought it
was most essential that the Crown should have postponed
striking the special jury until the list had been made correct
according to the adjudication of the Recorder, but the person
acting for the Crown refused to allow this. He felt con-
fident that no fair attorney, of ever such low practice,
would be guilty of such a course,—( Cheers, and laughter.)
But when it was done by the law officers of the Crown, he
should ask the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, was the Govern-
ment a party to those foul transactions? He cared nothing
about the distinction which was attempted to be drawn between
the thief and the receiver. You (said the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, pointing to the Ministerial benches)
have availed yourselves of this disreputable transaction.—
( Tremendous cheering.) Was the majesty of the law vindi.
cated by tampering with the jury list.—( Hear, hear.) He
should ask why take advantage of this irregularity and error ?
(Cheers.) if such an instance were to occur in Westminster,
would my Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, the Attorney-
General for England, take advantage of it ?—( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) What would have been his conduct ? Let West-
minster Hall answer that question.—(Cheers.) It would
have been that of an honourable officer of the Crown, vindi-
eating its dignity, and who remembered that no verdict in the
case of a Government prosecution could produce any effect
except the tribunal was beyond suspicion (Cheers.) Why,
his Hon. and Learned Friend in a trial last week, when he ap-
peared on behalf of the Crown to recover penalties, the at-
torney for the defendant complained of some defect in the
proceedings, and his Right Hon. Friend at once applied to the
Judge to put off the ti ial.—(Cheers. ) The same straight-
forward course had been pursued in Wales, and the most bene-
ficial results arose from it, by the people respecting and obey-
ing the law, for they were satisfied that they got justice.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded
to read an extract from the affidavit of the traversers agent
to the following effect :—Several gentlemen whose names,
were entitled to have their names upon the jury list, were in
attendance at the office of Mr. Bourne to prove the fact of
their claim not being allowed, and he refused to hear their
evidence, and instead drew the forty -eight names, when the
agent entered his protest against the course. At the
end of the affidavit there appeared the names of fifteen
jurors who had been adjudicated upon by the Recorder as to

their qualification as special jurors. The Right Hon. Gentle-
. man said there wa3 an omission of only fifteen, but there was
in point of fa,.•t an omission of twenty-seven names. The
special jury list was of course distinct from the common jury
list. He had shown that fifteen were omitted from the special
jury list, but it seemed that twelve othsrs were omitted from
the special jury likt, but included in the common jury list, and
an uncommon jury they were.--( Laughter.) The fifteen names
that were not in the special jury list at all, were persons pro-
fessing the Roman Catholic religion.—( Near, hear.) The
deponent, from whose affidavit he had read, also deposed to
having employed a competent person to revise and
take down the names of such persons who had been
admitted by the Recorder as persons qualified to
serve as special jurors.—( Hear.) That person having
made a return to him, he found that the subjoined persons, pro-
fessing the Roman Catholic religion, were passed by the Re-
corder as persons to be placed on the special jury list. The
whole of these names were omitted from the Sheriff's list of spe-
,cial jurors, and the names of such persons were as follow. ( Then
followed the names of twelve persons.) It therefore appeared
that the special jury list was deficient of twenty-seven names,
twelve having been Aced on the wrong list, and fifteen that
were omitted from both lists. Thu deponent further stated that
he was present at the office of Mr. Bourne on the sth of Ja-
nuary, when the list of forty-eight names was drawn from the
ballot-box. He saw that list reduced to twenty-four by twelve
being struck off on each side. Mr. Kemmis attended on behalf
of the Crown, and out of the twelve jurors struck off by him
eleven were persons professing the Roman Catholic religion,
they being the only persons out of the forty-eight persons whose
names were drawn from the ballot-box. The application con-
tained in the foregoing affidavit was not for the purpose of
creating delay, but because the deponent, in his consci-
ence, believed that, under the circumstances, the
traverser. were placed under disadvantages and dis-
qualifications which the law did not impose upon them.
It was quite clear from the proclamation of the lath January
that the Government were at the time cognisant of everything
which approached to conspiracy in the conduct of the accused.
It was said that only twenty-four names had been omitted.
On the other side it was asserted that sixty-five names were
accidentally left out.—( Cheers.) When the panel came to be
struck, it was evident to every man that the traversers could
not have a fair jury.—(Hear, hear.) Let it be said that the
omission of the ten Roman Catholics was as accidental as the
putting on of the twelve Protestants and anti-repealers. It
was now clear that the jury list was deficient in twenty-four or
twenty-five names. But it had been also clearly shown that
no irregularities had occurred—(Cheers)—except those that
were committed on the side of the Crown.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. SHAW said he held in his hand the list of the jurors,
and he could state every name which had been omitted and
the cause of the omission.

Sir T. WILDE said the Right Hon. Gentleman had not
at all touched upon the point to which he had alluded, which
he (Sir T. Wilde) contended had been left in as unsatisfactory
a state as before. What he alluded to was the refusal
of the sheriff to allow the books to be inspected by the
Srsver.er., v,;thent the cZonsent of the Crown. The traversers
swore they believed it to be essential to a -fair trial that the
r1.,1 should be quashed. The Crown hadzgot a list so imper-
fect ( whether by design or not he would not stop to inquire),
with so few Catholics upon it that they had the entire com-
mand of it. Now be (Sir T. Wilde) did not hesitate to say
that whoever took advantage of a fraud was as bad as he who
committed the fraud.—(Loud cheers.) He who seeks to get a
man tried by a jury, which that man swears to be un-
fairly and illegally formed, and in which it is a material
point as between Protestants and Catholics, is guilty of unjust
and indecent conduct.—(Cheers.) What must be the cha-
racter of a Government that would thus try a man ? I say,
were I a member of it, I should be ashamed to belong to it
for one moment longer after such a transaction.—(Cheers. )
By doing so, I should consider my character and honour gone.
—(Great cheering.) They ought instantly to have conceded
the quashing of the panel.--(Cheers.) He did not impute
dishonesty to the Learned Recorder for Dublin, but he did
charge upon him a mistake in his duty of the most grossly
grossly abominable character.—(Loud che,,rs.) This he would
not venture to have said except in the discharge of a public
duty.—( Hear, hear.) As the representative of the Crown, his
first care, his first thought, his first duty, was to see that there
was a fair jury, in order to have a fair trial; and in net seeing
to that, the Learned Recorder of Dublin had done less than his
duty._( Great cheering.) Did net the Crown eagerly grasp at
the jury ? and would any one tell him that was of no importance?
The Crown thought it would suit the purpose, and the Crown
retained the panel, instead of quashing it. What had the
Crown incurred for this ? Dishonour.—(Great cheering. )
What is the price they have paid for their Protestant jury ?
That the whole trial is involved in suspicion, injustice, and
wrong.--( Great cheering.) The Crown manifested that they
did not think it safe to trust to a jury in which Protestant and
Catholic might be fairly chanced together. The Noble Lord
said, in common cases, did not an attorney strike off names,
and deal with a case so as to win for his client ? Yes ! and his
complaint was, that the Crown had played to win.—(Loud
cheers.) His complaint was, that the Crown had taken every
advantage, had availed itself of every circumstance, whether
proper or improper, fraudulent or honest, to do that which the
Noble Lord said attorneys did in common practice, namely, to
win.—(Cheers.) Would any man tell him that Mr. O'Connell's
acquittal by a jury of Catholics and Protestants jointly,
if the people were satisfied that the trial was a fair one, would
not have done more good for the country than his conviction
as it then stood?—(Cheers.) The law would have been laid
down, the eyes of the public would have been opened, the
diligence of the Government would have been shown, Ire-
land would have seen the law administered with dignity.
Under those circumstances Mr. O'Connell's acquittal would
have been a piece of good fortune for the country rather than
otherwise. What was he indicted for? Among other things,
for endeavouring to withdraw the confidence of the people
from the courts of justice. What have you done ?—( Loud
cheers.) You have done infinitely more to destroy the confi-
dence of the people of Ireland in the administration of justice,
than Mr. O'Connell ever did. The Catholics believed that
they had marked them, and that it was part of their policy to
try Catholics by Protestant juries.—( Loud cheers.) Mr.
Thompson, one of the jury who tried Mr. O'Connell, was a
member of the Town Council of Dublin when Mr. O'Connell
made his motion on Repeal. Mr. Thompson on that occasion
was his strong opponent, and moved the counter-amendment,
to the effect that the union should be supported by every pos-
sible means.—(" No, no," from an Hon. Member on the Mi-
nisterial benches.)
Mr. SHEIL—IIe seconded the amendment.

Sir T. WILDE—The Honourable Gentleman shall have all
the benefit of my slight mistake. He did not mean
to say, of course, that Mr. Thompson had supported
such an amendment since he had ceased to be a member of the
Town Council, but this facility of denial made it extremely
important that the facts should be ascertained. He believed,
from information which he had, and which he did not take
from first, second, or third statements, that Mr. Thompson
was the gentleman who seconded that amendment. He was
also told that several of the jury were voters against Mr.
O'Connell. But he stood upon this, that it was a Protestant
Jury—that it was a Protestant jury, by the Crown insisting on
taking advantage of the improper conduct, neglectful or frau-
dulent, of the public officers who made up that list. By the
opposition made by the Crown to the quashing of that panel—
by the doubt, the discredit, and the suspicion it incurred by
that trial the Government had shown that it would sooner lie
under that suspicion, than run the chance of an acquittal by
having Catholics on the jury. Could this trial be presented to
the Irish people as a vindication of public justice? Could any
man be satisfied that Mr. O'Connell had not been convicted
on this most complicated indictment—this extraordinary mass
of evidence, composed in a manner that no ordinary jury could
possibly disentangle it, or distinguish the guilt of the several
men brought together ?—( Hear, hear.) Could any weight
attach to the verdict? But there wanted no verdict.
He could not help thinking that the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Attorney-General for Ireland, now that he had time to consider,
now that he was away from the excitement of the place, and
that moment he thought he must be as satisfied of the danger
to which he had put the country by the course he had taken as
any gentleman in that House could be. But would it have
any effect in allaying agitation ? Would it have any effect in
producing confidence in the Irish people in the administration
of justice? It would be the very reverse.—(Loud cheers.)
Send Mr. Connell to prison if they please]. Let the Court
refuse a new trial if it thought fit. ' Let the writ of error Le
over-ruled, and the judgment affirmed, still Mr. O'Connell had
not had a fair trial, and had a right to complain of the
Crown as having been tried without all that protection
the law gave him. Such a man had a right to treat
the verdict obtained against him, as one that was illegal—as
one for which he could have no respect. Now they saw what
the last year had added in point of policy, of credit, and of
honour to the present Government with regard to Ireland. Was
it for their extraordinary diligence in putting down these meet-
ings tly the lawful means of a proclamation, if it required one ?
Should the Government have taken the responsibility of allow-
ing these meetings to continue ? Why had they not tried the
experiment of a lawful proclamation. What if such a procla-
mation had been issued, and Mr. O'Connell had continued to
hold his meetings ? No better evidence could have been af-
forded, that he did not mean to pay obedience to the law.—.
(Hear, hear.) But they had not adopted this course. Some
persons were set to watch the sayings of that wan of master
mind—not always, he would say, master of himself in a great
assembly, on a great public question, in which his country's
interest was concerned. They added to his sayings the com-
ments of newspapers ; and they thus placed him in a situation
in which no Englishman ought to be placed on his trial. It
was not that species of prosecution which any Government in a
free country ought to institute. Looking, therefore, at
what had been the state of Irelandouid looking at the close of this
prosecution, what did they expect to follow ? They could not
expect that anything like peace and order would be the effect
of this prosecution. Would they be told that an improper part
was taken in investigating these proceedings? It was a stale
thing for one party to impute to another, " Why You are
causing or aggravating the mischief which you talk of.' Such
conduct had often been marked, and, as Mr. Burke said, it
was generally the mark of very shallow people.--( Hear.)
It was the duty of every Member of that House to discuss the
state of Ireland, and, in particular, to discuss what related to
the administration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) Especially was
it their duty, w they found that the law had
been wrested, a that a course of proceedings
iflp
had been adopted whic could not have been imported into
this country in days when liberty was nut se safe as it is now.
He did not for a moment doubt the Government were the ad.
vocates of public liberty, however they might take measures
which in their practical consequences slight he destructive of
public liberty. He did not suppose that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet was a less zealous guardian of public liberty than any
Hon. Gentleman in that House, but he said that if the course
which had been taken in Ireland were to be adopted in this
country there was not a single great public question which the
people would be able to discuss. The judges, sitting as they did
in a calm atmosphere, were apt to ask, on reading public meet-
ings, whether that was calm discussion—fair for reasoning?
The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) said the jury was their pro-
tection. Yes, but fairness of spirit was essential to the value
of trial by jury.—( Hear, hear.) Though agitation might be
quieted for the moment, let them not suppose that it was at an
end. Ireland had toe long complained of a want of due share
in power; she had too long complained of her religious state ;
she had too long felt apprehensions that the party now in power
were unfavourable in their dispositions to the liberty of Ireland,
to be quieted by such measures as had been adopted in that
country. The question was, what was their object for the
old were
future ? Did they mean to hold Ireland by the force
Hofear'lrelhaneadr.") The
wasan
story. The Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel), when he
introduced the Catholic Emancipation Bill, thought that if the
toldof troopsthat ?—!Cries Crie
agitations of "
story was old, it was well worth attending to. They bad now
witnessed many years of distraction in Ireland. Concession,
while it fell short of justice, would not be considered a boon
till it reached its utmost limit.—( Cheers.) A statesman might
mistake once in his life, but he who continued to be unwise in
spite of experience, would find that however high his character,
he would never gain the reputation. _of a great Minister. He
would call the Right Hon. tiaronet'aittsntion to another pas-
sage of his own, to show under what circumstances it
was expedient to concede. What was conceded
to justice would, in the case of a generous
people like that of Ireland, he received with gratitude, and he
had no doubt gratitude would be followed by obedience. This
was not a party question unless in the sense of its having been
brought forward by the party from whom all measures for the
benefit of Ireland had emanated. The Irish people had gained
emancipation for themselves by means of agitation,
and by agitation in that House they had with
the aid of that party contrived to receive other be-
neficial measures. No body expected that that motion would
lead to a change of Government. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man at the head of affairs was surrounded by supporters who
• •

. -
were banded together upon questions of a far different descrip-
tion from the present, so as to prevent anything like apprehen-
sion of his being removed from office upon this question.
There could then be no such motive far bringing it forward
as the hope of effecting a change of Government. But if it
would lead to any improvement in the state of Ireland, they
would be content to let their opponents have the honour of it..
His Noble Friend had not contented himself with finding fault
with the policy of the Government, but he had stated what he
considered ought to le done. In so doing, he had shown him-
self a statesman and a politician, although, perhaps, he had not
shown himself a skilful tactician, for he could not but recollect
that the Right Honourable Baronet, when in office, always
said, if his plans were found fault with, Tell me
of something better, or mine mast be the best—and when out of
office, if he found fault with the plans of others, and was called
on to produce his own, he refused to do so until he was regu-
larly called in and received his fee.—(Cheers and laughter. )
He trusted the British and Irish public would, during
the course of this debate, hear from the Right Hon.
Baronet a manly, fair, and bold exposition of his own policy
—(Cheers)--he trusted the Right Hon. Gentleman would not
content himself with merely cavilling at the bye points which
had been alluded to in the debate, hut would apply himself to
the real subject of the debate, for the people of England had a
right to know his policy, and he trusted he would not shrink
from declaring it.—(Loud cheers.) He ( Sir T. Wilde) sup-
ported the motion of the Noble Lord, and he had no doubt
that the day was not far distant when either such a motion
would be carried, or rendered unnecessary by the adoption of a
wiser, and better, and sounder, and safer policy towards Ire-
land than that which had hitherto been pursued.—The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman then sat down amidst tremendous
cheering, which lasted for several minutes. At the conclusion
of his speech Mr. Wyse and several other Irish Members went
up to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and shook him cor-
dially by the hand.
Mr. SHAW explained that after the conclusion of the re-
vision he had remained in Dublin more than a week ; that he
had then gone to England, but had not taken a single original
list with him but, had directed his registrar to make a rough
copy of thd special jury list, and send it to him ;
and that was the only copy of the list he had seen.
out of Court. It would have been contrary to law for the
officers to have permitted any one to have had access to the
list until it had been delivered to the Sheriff. The list had
been delivered to the Sheriff on the 28th of December,
and on the 29th, in answer to an application made by
the traversers' counsel for a ropy of the list, he
had stated that he should be glad to give such copy
if it could be shown to him that he had any power to do so
under the Act of Parliament ; and he had further said, that if
the Crown would consent, he would order his officer to make
out two copies of the list, and furnish one to
the traversers and one to the Crown prosecutors.
He sent down the clerk of the peace_Lo see whether the Crown
lawyers would consent to it or not, but they refused to con-
sent.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Oh.") The Right Hon.
Gentleman proceeded to explain the omission of names from
the list. Twenty-four names had been omitted in all from the
list, and no more. Of those he believed tho greater number
were Catholics. Th. ornissicn bad arisen from pure accident.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to enter into
particulars, and said he had taken the utmost pains to rectify
the mistake.

On the motion of an HON.IzaIBEIt the debate was again
adjourned.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter to Three o'clock.

RAILWAY BUSINESS IN
PARLIAMENT.

In the House of Commons on Monday night the petitions
for the following Railway Bills were severally reported from
the Committee on Standing Orders, and the Bills were ordered
to be brought in as follow :—Manchester and Leeds Railway
(Bradford Branch), by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Broadley ; Great
Western Railway, by Mr. Charles Russell and Mr. Hayter ;
Manchester and Leeds Railway (Heywood Branch), by Mr.
Mark Philips and Mr. Milner Gibson ; Huddersfield Branch
Railway, by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Broadley ; Manchester and
Leeds itailway (Bury Branch), by Mr. Mark Philips and
Mr. Milner Gibson.

Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Bill, " for making a Rail-
way from the Lancaster and Preston Junction Railway, at
Lancaster, to or near to the city of Carlisle ;" read a first time.
Newbury and Great Western Railway Bill, " for making a
Railway from the Great Western Railway to the town of
Newbury, in the county of Berks ;" read a first time.
We copy the following from the official Report of the pro-
ceedings of the House of Commons on Friday :
" Manchester' Bury, and Rossendale Railway.—Petition
for Bill reported, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr.
Walker, and Mr. Wilson Patten.

" Leeds and Bradford Railway.—Petition of Thomas New-
sam, complaining of non-compliance with the Standing
Order, referred to the Select Committee on Petitions for
Private Bills.

" South Devon Railway.—Petition for Bill referred to the
Select Committee on Petitions on Private Bills.
" Northern Coal Mining Company.—Petition for Private
Bill referred to the Select Committee on Petitions for Pri-
vate Bills.

" Newbury, Basingstoke, London and Southampton Rail-
way.--Petition of Robert Fuller Graham, complaining of
non-compliance with the Standing Orders, referred to the
Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills."

THE ORANGE CLUBS REVIVED.
TILE OnA-Nrom SOCIETY.—The following resolutions were
passed unanimously at a meeting held in Coleraine, on Mon-
day, February 12, 1844, which was attended by the repre-
sentatives of upwards of ten thousand Orangemen from the
counties of Antrim and Berry :
" Resolved—That the Grand Lodge of Ireland having
dissolved themselves, the district masters here present do
form themselves into a lodge, to be called the Grand Lodge
of Ulster.'

" That, in consequence of the dissolution of the Grand
Lodge of Ireland, and the consequent disorganisation of the
Orange system in this country, it is expedient that the same
poWers and privileges which were vested in the Grand Lodge
of Ireland, (luring its existence, be now vested in the Grand
Lodge of Ulster. . _

"-That a Committee be appointed to carry out the above
resolutions.

" That, as Orangemen, we are bound to preserve unshaken
loyalty to our Gracious Queen, being Protestant, and to
support her against all her enemies, foreign or domestic ;
that wo will stand together to defend with our 'properties
and lives the integrity of the empire, as cemented by the
Legislative Union ; and that we will, by the grace of God,
to the best of our ability, maintain the Holy Scriptures as
the standard of faith and morals.

" That the Orange Institution commenced when this
kingdom was threatened with invasion by foreign enemies,
and rebellion by internal foes; and that our brethren in the
year 1798, and at all other times, have proved by their acts
as yeomen and Orangemen, the strong attachment they have
held to the Sovereign and our once glorious Constitution.

" That we have, for some time past, witnessed with alarm
the rebellious spirit which has shown itself—and that we are
determined, as Protestants, to unite more closely in those
bonds, that will enable us in this time of peril to resin the
attacks of our inveterate enemies, whose sole aim is eur extir-
pation from this country for ever.
" That the Grand Lodge of Ulster dq receive into union all
lodges in the province which may wish to join themselves to
it, and that all county masters be ex-officio members of the
Grand Lodge of Ulster."

CONVICTIONS IN FELONY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SlR,—Misunderstanding prevails in respect to the mode in
which, upon trial of a prisoner for felony (where he has before
been convicted of a larceny), in respect to_ the fact of his
former conviction as to how and when it should be proved. I
need not travel through Acts of Parliament applicable, but
simply state the law as it stands on this point now.
That portion of the indictment for a second felony, which
sets forth a former conviction, is not to be brought before the
petty jury until after a verdict of " Guilty," unless the pri-
soner, upon his defence, calls witnesses to character, in which
case the prosecutor is then entitled to call the attention ofthe
jurors to the former conviction. This is as the law now
stands, and if not strictly adhered to, it is manifestly unjust
towards a prisoner.—l am, Sir, obediently yours,
Feb. 20, 1844. IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

DEATH Or MAJOR-GENERAL GOODMAN.—(From
the Guiana Herald, Jan. 3.)—This day the melancholy duty
devolves upon us to record the death of Major-General
Goodman, C. 8., K.H.—a sad, but, we believe, not wholly un-
expected event, which occurred last evening, about nine
o'clock. General Goodman, beside Nelaiderable service in
the Peninsula, was present at the''i eat and crowning day"
of Waterloo.

The barque Lady Bute, which sailed on Saturday
evening last for Calcutta, carried one of the most valuable
cargoes which has ever left the Clyde, being estimated at
more than 40,00 W.

A SECOND DANIEL LAMBERT.—On Sunday after-
noon was buried at St. Bride's church, Fleet-street, a well-
known character, named Charles Cole, aged 42, who was
found by his wife, on the morning of Tuesday last, lying dead
by her side. Cole, though not more than 5 feet 7 inches in
height, was of extraordinary bulk, weighing nearly 24 stone
(141bs. per stone). He had been in the capacity of cook at the
Rainbow, in Fleet-street, nearly 14 years, and during that
period he save great satisfaction to his employers and others.
A short time before his decease, however, he had grown
enormously fat. A alight mistake, it would seem, had been
made made in the dimensions of the coffin, it being upwards
of 6 feet 3 inches in length, done probably for the purpose of
taking off the appearance of its bulk, but on being brought to
the grave it was found to be much too long ; this occasioned
some delay : it was, however, speedily rectified, and the
ponderous mass was soon consigned to mother earth.
DAILY PRAYER.—In the English Churchman there
is a list of all the churches in England, with the exception
of the cathedrals and some metropolitan churches, in which
daily prayers are read. The list extends to the number
of 190.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AT WASHINGTON.
—ln the House of Representatives the proceedings concluded
with a fight. The account of it may interest our readers, and
even surprise some who do not read the American papers.
A Mr. Weller had told a Mr. Shriver that certain written
statements were incorrect :—" To this Mr. Shriver answered,
that he wrote them from his own observation, or inform&
tion, and that if Mr. Weller said they were false, he told
falsehoods, or was a.liar. Weller then struck him, and they
clinched, fell against one of the windows, broke it (this was
just behind the Globe reporter's desk), and down went one
or both of them. Several. Members rushed up, some tried to
separate them, others cried Let 'em have a fair fight ;' and
one Democratic Member said, If there'sanybody that wishes
to take his part (alluding to the Whigs), I shall take a hand
in the matter myself.' Finally, after several blows had been
struck, Mr. Broadhead, of Pennsylvania, separated them.
Mr. Shriver went to the Police-office, got a warrant for Mr.
Weller, and held Mr. Weller to bail."

DEAFNESS CURED.—" ARNICA MONTANA." -- A
paper of considerable importance to sufferers from nervous
deafness was read on Saturday afternoon, by Dr. Cronin,
Craven-street, Strand, physician to the Free Dis-
pensary, on the efficacy of " arnica montane " in the cure of
this distressing affection. The lecturer observed that deaf-
ness was more prevalent than was aurally imagined—that
there was a marked difference between nervous derangement
and structural changes, and that he believed the frequent
failure of aurists in the cure of deafness arose from a total
inattention to the difference between disorders arising from
either mere torpor or increased irritability, and those to
which were superadded structural alterations. He next
called attention to the natural history, chemical constitution,
and medical properties of the arnica, observing that, having
found it highly beneficial in several distressing nervous af-
fections, he tried it in nervous deafness, and had much plea-
sure in alluding to the cases of several highly respectable per-
sons completely relieved by its use. Dr. Cronin then com-
mented on the mutilation practised by some aurists of re-
moving the uvula awl, glands of the throat, and remarked
that operations of thl?kind tended, from the shock
.produced
on the nervous sytem, to increase, rather than diminish, the
disease, and concluded some highly-interesting observations,
by stating that the College of Physicians'omitted in their last
" Pharmacopoeia" this valuable remedy, but hoped it would
be restored in their next.—Standard. The matter of this
lecture will be immediately published by Dr. Cronin.

I COURT CIRCULAR.
WZNDSOR, TUESDAY.—The Queen and Prince Albert took
their usual early walk in the forenoon: Her Majesty and
her Illustrious consort again promenaded in the vicinity of s
, the Castle in the afternoon.
I The Royal Family have been taken out to-day their accusi.
tonged airings in the Park.
I Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent paid a visit to
her Majesty at the Castle this afternoon. The Royal Duchess
afterwards returned to her residence, Frogmore-lodge
Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cam-
bridge arrived in town yesterday from their residence at
Kew.
The Ecclesiastical Commission for England had a meeting
yestergLay afternoon at the office in Whitehall-place. The
Connutssioners present were the Bishop of London, the
Bishop of Bangor, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of Here-
ford, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Bishop of Llandaff, the
Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Rochester, the Earl- of
Besborough, the Earl of Harrowby, the Right Honourable
11. Hobhouse, the Right Honourable John
1 and the Dean of Westminster.

Count de St. Aulaire, the French Ambassador, and Count
Reventlow, the Danish Minister, transacted business yester-
day at the Foreign-office.
The Bishop of London had an interview with the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer yesterday at his official residence in
Downing- street.
Sir James Graham had an interview with Sir Robert Peel
yesterday.
Dispatches from the Governor of the Mauritius were re
ceived yesterday at the Colonial-office.
The Judicial Committee of her Majesty's Most Honourable
Privy Council sat yesterday. The Lords present were Lord
Campbell, the Judge of the Prerogative Court, the Judge of
the Admiralty Court, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Cornwall.
Mr. Pemberton Leigh gave judgment on the part of their
Lordships on an appeal from the island of Jersey, " Lebreton
v. Ennis," reversing the judgment of the Court below, and
giving judgment for the plaintiff with damages.
A motion was made in the matter of " The Augusta—
Hill v. Jennings." Dr. Addams, Mr. Nicholl, and the
Queen's Advocate having been heard, Lord Campbell gave
judgment,
An appeal from the Prerogative of York, " John Bell,
Thomas Stubbs Walker, and Thomas Meynell, executors of
Peter Consett, Esq., deceased, while living residuary le-
gatee named in the will of Warcop Consett, Esq., the party
in the cause deceased, v. Mary Raisbeck, wife of Leonard
Raisbeck, and neice of Warcop Consett, Esq.," was heard.
Sir Herbert Jenner Fust gave judgment on the part of
their Lordships, in favour of the appellant, reversing the
sentence appealed against, and directing the allegations to
be reformed. The Court then rose.

J.JUSTICE TO IRELAND!
At a .MEETING held at Cleveland-row, Monday, Feb-
ruary 19, 1844,
Resolved—
That the conduct of the present Government towards Ireland, In
Its general policy, and particularly in connection with the late trial
of Daniel O'Connell and his fellow-traversers, deserves and demands
the most severe reprobation.
That equal laws and equal privileges—freedom of discussion—meet-
ing together to proclaim grievances—agitation by peaceable and legal
means—and fair trial by jury—are the birthrights of every subject of
the United Kingdom.
That the powers brought to bear against these rights in Ireland,
although directed against Mr. O'Connell, are equally adverse to the
rights of Englishmen.
That, in order to show the sympathy of Englishmen with Irish-
men, and the admiration entertained in this conntry for the co/latent
and consistent advocate of the rights and privileges of Irishmen
during the last forty years, a public dinner be given to Daniel
O'Connell, Esq., M.P.
That Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, Esq., M.P., be requested to
preside on the occasion.

JAMES COPPOCK, Hon. Secretary

- • Now ready, at all the Libraries, in 3 vols postB%•.,
CHII. As . T S NV OR T;
OR,
THE ROMANCE OF A WEEK.
Edited by R. PLUMER WARD, Esq.
Author of " Tre•mslne," " De Vere," Sze.
Henry Coiburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street.

ER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.
SEASON 1844.
The following outline of the arrangements for the ensuing season
is respectfully presented to the Nobility, Subscribers, and the Public.

ENGAGEMENTS FOR THE OPERA.
Madame Grisi, Madile. M. Favanti (her first appearance at this
Theatre), Madame Belnn!, Madame Dai Fiori, and Madame l'ersiani.
Signor Mario, Sig. Correlli (his first appearance at this Theatre),
Sig. Dai Fiorl, gig. Felice (his first appearance at this Theatre), Sig.
Farnasari, Big. F. Lablache, and Sig. Lablache.
Director of the Music, Composer, and Conductor, Sig. Costa.
THE BALLET.

Madlle. Carlotta Grisi, Madlle. Adelaide Frasi, of the Teatro di
Pergola, Flerence (her first appearance at this theatre) ; Mad. Guy
Stephan ; Madlle. Scheffre, Madlle. Ferdinand, Madlle. l'lanquet,
Madlle. Barville (their first appearance at this theatre) ; Madlle.
Fanny Elssler, and Madlle. Cerito ; M. St. Leon, M. Montassu (his
first appearance in this country), M. Coulon, M. Gosselin, M.
amulet, M. Venafra, M. Bertram, and M. Perrot, and a numerous
and efficient Corps de Ballet.
Arrangements are also pending with Madlle. Taglioni, and there is.
every probability that the talent of this eminent artiste will be se-
cured for a limited number of representations.
The Theaire will Open in the first week of March, when will be
produced Herold's celebrated Opera of " Zampa:" Camilla, Madame
Persiani ; Zampa, Sig. Fornasari. To be followed by a New Ballet,
by M. Perrot, with New Scenery, Dresses, &c., entitled " La Esme-
ralda." The Music by Sig. Pupil. The Scenery by W. Grieve. The
Prindpal Characters by Madlle. Carlotta Grisi, Madlle. Adelaide
Frasi, Madame Guy Stephan, Madlle. Scheffre, Madlle. Planquet,
Madlle. Ferdinand, and Madlle. Barville ; M. Perrot, M. Coulon, M.
Gosselin, and M. St. Leon.

THEATRE ROYAL, DRURY-LANE.
I'U-MORROW EVENING, FEBRUAPY 1:2, •
Wit he repeated a New Grand Opera, in Three Acts, called I'HE
BOHEMIAN GIRL Count Aruheim, Mr. Borrani; haddeus,
Mr. W. Harrison; Arline, Miss Raintorth; Queen of the Gipsies,
Miss Betts. After which,
.Will be repeated Albert's celebrated Ballet of THE BEAUTY
OF GHENf. Marquis de San Lucar, M. Albert; Berne ict, M.
Heguct Vestris ; Beatrix, Mdlle. Fleury_; Agnes, Mdlle Clara
Webster; Julia, Yadame Pet.t Stephan; Diana, Mdlle. O'Bryan.
Dress boxes Is., Second Price 3s. 6d.; Upper Circles of Boxes Is.,
Scrond Price 35.; Pit 3s , Second Price .s.; MAt;le Gallery 25.,
Second Price Is.;- Upper Gallery Is., Second Price titi.