The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-27 00:00:00

(SCOTLAND.

IRELAND.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 26.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.
REPEAL OF TILE UNION.—THE CATHOLIC

PRIESTHOOD.

The Marquis of NORMANBY said that he wished
to say a few words in reference to a statement which
had been made by the Nol4le Marquis opposite (the
Marquis of Westmeath) in the course of the late de-
bate on the state of Ireland ; namely, that a poor
priest, who had refused to assist in collecting the re-
peal rent, had been suspended in consequence for a
month by his bishop. He (the Marquis of Nor-
manby) felt it right both to the Noble Marquis oppo-
site and to the Right Rev. Gentleman to whom the
statement referred, to mention that he had received a
positive contradiction from the Right Rev. Dr. Cant-
well, the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese where
the occurrence was said to have taken place, stating
most distinctly that no such thing ever occurred, and
that he believed that no Roman Catholic bishop would
be guilty of such an act.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that he was
obliged to the Noble Marquis for giving him the ear-
liest intimation of the contradiction he had received
to the statement which he (the Marquis of West-
meath) had made. All he could say at the pre-
sent moment was, that the fact was stated, and
was pretty notorious in the country. Of course
he was bound to inquire further into the
matter before he could reiterate the charge. There
might have been some error as to the time when the
Roman Catholic priest to whom he had alluded and
who was now dead had been suspended; but he re-
peated he would make further inquiry into the matter.
The Marquis of NORMANBY only wished to
state the fact, that he had received a contradiction of
the Noble Marquis's statement, explicitly declaring
that no priest had ever been suspended for the alleged
cause.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH reiterated his
intention of making further inquiries into the
matter, and then said, that, as he was upon his legs,
he would put a question to his Noble and Learned
Friend on the 'Woolsack.
The Duke of WELLINGTON hoped that their
Lordships would adhere to the practice of not asking
questions without giving notice.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said he did not
wish his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack
to give an answer, if his doing so were inconvenient.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that one of the
advantages of giving notice was, that it gave an op-
portunity to the party to whom it was put, to consider
conjointly with the person who gave the notice, as to
whether it was proper, to put the question or not.
Lord BROUGHAM said another advantage was
that it enabled him to give an answer.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE made a few
observations which were inaudible in the gallery.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that he
made a mistake in calling it an order of the House;
but it was a practice of their Lordships, which it was
very desirable not to infringe upon, not to ask a
question without giving notice.
The conversation then dropped.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from the masters and scholars of the University of
Cambridge, against the union of the sees of St.
Asaph and Bangor.
FRENCH AND ENGLISH COLLISION IN

THE SOUTH SEAS.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to ask his Noble
Friend opposite (Lord Aberdeen) a question in re-
lation to a rumour which had caused a great deal of
alarm in this country. He was sure his Noble
Friend would have no difficulty in answering his
question, as the rumour to which it referred was one
that could scarcely have any foundation. His question
was, whether his Noble Friend had received any in-
formation on the subject of an encounter alleged to
have taken place between French and English ships
of war in the South Seas ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the Noble
Lord's question was an instance of the inconvenience
which had been so strongly reprehended in the con-
versation which had just taken place amongst their
Lordships, and in which his Noble and Learned
Friend had taken part.—(A laugh.) However, he
could say that he had received no information on the
subject, and he thought it very improbable that there
was any foundation for the rumour.—(Hear.)
EXPULSION OF POLES FROM POSEN.
Lord BROUGHAM rose to put another question
to his Noble Friend.---(Laughter.) It was well
known to his Noble Friend, and to all their Lord-
ships, that his Majesty, the present King of Prussia,
ruled over his dominions with great kindness and
justice—and that his kindness was not confined to
his Saxon and Prussian subjects, but was extended to
his Polish subjects in the Grand Duchy of Posen, which
was annexed to the kingdom of Prussia in the year
1774. But it was said that he had lately issued a
proclamation, that all persons from Russia and
Austrian Poland should depart from Posen. He (Lord
Brougham) thought that was very unlike the rest of
his Majesty's conduct since he ascended the throne.—
(Hear, hear.) If he had done so, it must be in
consequence of something which had not come to the
knowledge of the public in this country. He (Lord
Brougham) thought such a proceeding was not con-
sistent with the mildness and justice of the -King's
administration hitherto.
The Earl of ABERDEEN had again to ob-
serve, that in consequence of the wart of notice, he
was unable to give a decided answer.—(l-fear and a
laugh.) He knew indeed that the King of Prussia
had lately adopted some measures in relation to the
Polish refugees residing in Posen, but how far those
measures extended, he was not prepared to say.
He agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend,
that from what they knew of the character and
Government of the King of Prussia, it would appear
that whatever he had done, was warranted by the
necessity of the case.—(Hear.)
CATHOLICS ON JURIES IN IRELAND.
Lord CAMPBELL begged the indulgence of the
House, while he brought under their notice a matter
which had occasioned great pain to a gentleman of
great respectability. In doing so, he would keep
himself within their Lordships rules, and not make
a speech without a motion.—(A laugh.) He re-
gretted that the Noble Lord the Earl of Roden was
not present ; however, he would not hesitate to
mention the matter in his Lordship's absence,
for he was bringing no charge against the
Noble Earl, who had said nothing which
he did not believe to be perfectly correct.
But the Noble Earl fell into a mistake natu-
rally enough. The gentleman in whose behalf
he (Lord Campbell) had to solicit their attention was
Mr. Richard O'Gorman, an opulent and respectable
merchant of the city of Dublin, who was one of the
grand jury before whom the indictment was preferred
against Mr. O'Connell. The circumstance to
which he (Lord Campbell) was about to advert
had been mentioned by his Noble and Learned Friend
behind him, and on that occasion Lord Roden said
that it was an instance of the unfitness of Roman
Catholics to be placed upon juries, because Mr.
O'Gorman, notwithstanding his oath to keep his own
counsel and that of his fellows, declared, in open
court that he had not consented to the finding. The
fact was that the foreman of the grand jury signed
the Bill for " himself and fellows," when Mr.
O'Gorman said in Court that he ;for one had not
agreed. Mr. O'Gorman had a son at , the
_ _

Irish Bar, who had communicated with him
(Lord C.), and transmitted to him references to
authorities which proved that the jurors were
only bound by their oaths to keep secret the evidence
and material facts which came before them, but they
were in no wise bound to conceal in what way they
had voted in the jury-room. There was a case at
the Old Bailey, on which the Chief Justice presided,
and actually examined the jury individually in Court
as to the way in which they had voted, and in another
case Lord Kenyon ruled that no grand juror could
be examined upon a trial to prove whether
or not the evidence of the prosecuting wit-
ness was the same in Court at the trial
with that which he had given before the jury.
It was quite enough if twelve concurred in finding
the bill ; the dissent of those who did not was of no
importance. He should not conclude by any formal
motion.
Lord BROUGHAM thought there was no oc,
casion for that ; there was nothing objectionable
in the mode taken to defend an absent person.
But it was only right that he should state
there must be a great mistake either in the report
or the recollection of the Noble and Learned Lord, if
he supposed that Lord Roden meant to throw any
imputation on Mr. O'Gorman of having violated his
oath. But the Noble Earl was arguing on the dan-
ger of leaving Roman Catholics on the
petty jury, and in order to illustrate this, he stated
that the trials were looked on so much as a Catholic
question in Ireland, that this respectable individual,
a Catholic,was so apprehensive and alarmed at the effect
of being supposed to have agreed with the other grand
jurors that he did a:very unusual thing—he came into
open Court, and declared that he did not concur in
the finding. Certainly there was no intention on the
part of Lord Roden to impute anything like moral
perjury to Mr. O'Gorman.
Lord CAMPBELL said he had not intended to in-
troduce anything of a controversial nature into the
question.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH bore testimony to
the honourable conduct of Mr. O'Gorman when
assistant barrister of the county in which he lived.
After a few words from Lord WHARNCLIFFE and
Lord CAMPBELL, the conversation dropped.'
FREE TRADE.
Lord CLARENDON (on behalf of Lord Radnor)
postponed the presentation of the petition from the
county of Somerset, in favour of free trade, till
Thursday, the 29th inst.
TRADE WITIITURKEY.

Lord BEAUMQNT Asked if it ,would be copye-

nient for the Government to lay ou the table auy
copies or extracts of correspondence between the
Foreign-office and the Porte, relating to the duties on
British goods imported into Turkey.
The Earl of ABERDEEN made no objection to
laying the correspondence on the table.
JURIES IN IRELAND.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice of
his intention to move that there be laid before the
House any instructions that had been given in Ireland
with regard to the mode of striking juries. He did
not fix any day for that motion.
Their Lordships then adjourned.