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

el I Whether the present Government had done so,
he thought there could not be much doubt
1. about it. The union had been proposed as a
s remedy for the grievances of Ireland. Had it answered
al that purpose ? And if it had not, was there much dill-
" culty in considering why it had failed ? Everything
h had been tried in governing Ireland by good faith and
d justice. The union had not been accomplished in a men-
d ner to afford satisfaction to the people. The
If most eminent patriots of the time at which the
i, union was carried denounced the measure as having
II been accomplished by fraud and by profligate means.
- Ireland had not received her fair share of the bargain—
h Catholic Emancipation had not been granted until
29 years after the union. It was not conceded until it
could no longer be withheld with safety—emancipation,
,t like the union, was, to a great extent, nominal—the value
1 of the Emancipation Actconsisted in its being practically
t carried out. If the Roman Catholics were not
- admitted to a full anticipation in the privi-
a loges and honours which the law conferred upon
them, the Emancipation Bill was a dead letter.
e Both should be carried out in perfect good faith.
a In consequence of this Ireland, instead of being a happy
✓ adjunct to England, had been a constant source of the
a greatest anxiety and trouble to her, and had been her-
( self in a state of perpetual uneasiness. It was most ma-
t terial, considering the period which had passed by, that
they should take a serious review of what were the com-
a plaints which had been urged by the Irish people, and
- what were the causes which kept her in that condition,
f and the remedies which they proposed to apply to evils of
t such long continuance. Ireland had been under the manage-
ment of the political party who now held the reins of
- Government for a very long period, and what she was now
was the result of their management. They had a short
exception during the time of the Whigs, but
i Honourable Gentlemen opposite, having this long
experience in the treatment of Ireland, ought
. they not to have been able to devise some
. means to remedy the ills of the country? When
the Whigs were in power, and likely to leave office, the
Right Hon. Baronet. acknowledged that Ireland would
be the great difficulty with which he would have to con-
tend. Full time and consideration had been bestowed
upon the state of Ireland ; and the present Government
therefore were expected to be well prepared to legislate
in the manner which the state of Ireland required. Well,
two years had passed, and nothing had been done.
While in opposition, the Tory party was most active
in their exertions to frustrate all attempts on the part of
the Whigs to ameliorate the condition of Ireland. It
had been a complaint against the Whigs that
they done so little for Ireland whilst they were in
power. Now he would challenge any one to show that
they had power to do more than what they did. That
their most anxious wish was to act upon the principles
which the Noble Lord avowed, and on the policy which
he announced in his speech, no one could deny. They
had been taunted because of withdrawing the appropria-
tion clause, but he would ask, was it withdrawn as a
matter of choice on the part of the Whigs, or was
it withdrawn because they found they were unable
to carry it, as they had been also unable to carry many
other objects, by the force of the Opposition? During
that period, considering what had been the course pur-
sued by the Opposition, the Whigs had shown the same
feeling towards Ireland which they had manifested
during the many years of her sorrow, agitation, and
distress. The first reasonable ground for the security
of any country was general confidence in the Govern-
ment ; and could the Irish nation feel the slightest con-
fidence in the present Administration? The reverse was
the case. What were the taunts which were loudest
against the Whigs when in power, but that they were
making too many concessions to the Irish people? The
cry of Hon. Gentlemen opposite was that concession
had reached its utmost limits—(Hear, and cheers)--
and that no further concessions could be granted with
safety to the interests of the Established Church, or of
the English nation. There was one thing which he con•
sidered most extrordinary, and that was the assertion
that the Whig Government had not done all they ought
to have done for Ireland. At least two of its most ta-
lented Members had alienated themselves from
the party to which they were originally attached,
merely because the then Whig Government were
favourable to Ireland. And, unfortunately for Ire-
land, the only two Members of the late Whig Adminis-
tration, who had been admitted into the present Go-
vernment, were those two who had displayed the
most inveterate hatred against that country. When the
present Government was first formed, great anxiety
prevailed to know how the Right Hon. Baronet would
act towards Ireland ; and what had been done
during the two 3-ears he held office, and what was the
present state of Ireland ? Why Ireland continues to
to be as she had been before, upon the very brink of a
civil war; and were they to be' told after this acknow-
ledgment, that the Noble Lord was wrong in asking the
House to review the affairs of that country, and the
policy which had been acted on, and which was likely to
continue with respect to the government of that-country?
—(Hear, and cheers.) It had been said that this motion
had been brought forward at a wrong time; but in
answer to that, he should say that any one who had the
slightest knowledge of the popular history of Ireland
would acknowlege that there never yet was an instance
when a motion, such as the present, was brought before
the House, that it was. not called ill-timed. That was
the common and constant mode in which such motions
were met. Was Ireland in a state now that allowed them
to choose their own time ?—(Hear, hear, and
cheers.) Were they to wait until the stream had passed
by? Did they not know Ireland was only in the same state
that she had been for years before, and that there was
not the slightest prospect of a cessation of those evils ?
The time to demand an investigation was when the
country was in such a state of agitation as it was now.
The motion was a most constitutional and intelligible
one.—(Cheers.) The intent of the motion was to ask
this House, and to ask the country, if the policy pursued
by the present Government towards Ireland was ap-
proved of. He would not attempt to deny that this
motion implied censure upon the Government. He was
aware that the motion would be lost by a large majority,
but still he felt sure it was the duty of the Noble Lord
to bring conviction to Ireland, that her wants, and, even
if in error, her errors; had been respectfully treated by
Parliament, and that the state of the country should not
be passed over in silence, but that the House should
consider and pronounce an opinion upon the matter.
Had they governed Ireland in such a manner as to se-
cure peace ? Was the fault with Ireland or with the
Government ? If it was her fault, was the Govern-
ment capable of applying any means to correct the faulti?
How long would they require to do so ? What period
of time was supposed to furnish sufficient evidence as to
the fitness or unfitness of any given course of policy?
Could they for one moment believe that past experience
did not show the cause which had produced the present
discontent? Did that course of policy which had so long
failed hitherto, present any prospect of answering better
for the future ? He apprehended that there was no
ground whatever for it. The Government said, as all
persons said, that the Irish Church, was at the bottom
of the unhappiness under which Ireland suffered. Well,
then, why did they not propose a remedy—some-
thing less than the disease itself ? They had been
trying various remedies for the Irish. Church. It had
been allowed to be an evil, and if it were allowed to
continue how could they expect that remedies addressed
to other matters, which wholly passed by the
Irish Church—how did they expect that peace
would result from measures that had so long failed ?
With the present condition of Ireland, could they be led
to suppose that measures which had hitherto failed,
without any alteration of the circumstances, would be
more successful for the, future ? There was no ground
for this. He said, therefore, that the present Govern.
ment were called upon to state how they proposed to
meet those difficulties. He, for one, thought that the
union between the two countries was necessary for the
prosperity of both. The Government had declared that
they were ready for civil war rather than resign that.
If this was the case he would ask how long they would
so maintain it ? What period of time did they suppose
would Ireland remain in that condition? What period
of time did they suppose that the Christian in-
habitants of Great Britain would continue such a civil
war ? Ireland said, " Give us our due share of influence
in the Government. Do not keep the Establishment in
the condition in which it now is, so wholly unsuited to
the object of an Establishment. If you tell us that you
cannot give us this—if you say that there are circum-
stances in the union which prevent you from granting
us our just demands, Ireland has a right to demand the
repeal of the union." The union ought no longer to
exist than for the happiness and prosperity of both.
Ireland said ibis country had professed to form a part-
nership,—" You monopolise all the power—you exclude
us from all interference in the management of our concerns.
We call upon you to do us justice—to give us a due
share of authority—to make the partnership a source of
happiness and prosperity to us. You refuse to do this,
and say, Rather than dissolve the partnership, you are
ready for civil war." He would def.y any man to enter
on the contemplation of this subject. and come to the
conclusion that civil war would last long under such
circumstances. The English nation was distinguished
for its justice and its religion. What would be the
condition of England in the eyes of Europe during the
continuance of a civil war arising out of claims such as
those urged by Ireland. Were these matters fit to be
considered? Let them remember that things had oc-
curred before from which the Government of' England
might derive a useful lesson. The exhibition of the
power of resisting the claims of Ireland, with respect
to the dissolution of the union, was he trusted, very re-
mote, if not impossible. But what was the case with
respect to America ?—(Hear, hear.) The present Go-
vernment could not hold a higher tone—they could not
more despise their anticipations which related to the dis-
memberment of the empire, than the Government did at
the time of the American war. Contrary, however, to
their expectations—descending from their high tone and
from their very heavy threatening, America was lost
to this country—lost by the unhappy folly of the Go-
vernment of the day who would not take timely warning;
and what was now the tone with respect to Ireland ?
Why was Catholic Emancipation granted ? Because
they could not withhold it. It was easy to talk of civil
war—but he repeated that civil war would not last long
under the sanction of the English nation. England
would proclaim, and proclaim loudly, against the injus-
tice of one'nation overrunning and subjugating another
on account of that nation insisting upon its rights. He
rpwi rthoyi ac
ochhf
waslorf
e l
inconsistentan
did not believe that 'England would long endure the
carryingre-
onavvw.iathr inthoerdheraptpo
tribt
ohe
ee they
hhnees shouldpdefertherefore
consider
iacbl
easl
called
subject.
eadtrteuhs
p same
result
happiness and pa ruons oen-
Surely, therefore, when the Government
theHofteiGn
itself looked at the possibility of such a state of things,
touehvcoehurGovernment
thought
statentcontemplateth me
oNows
ftohbsatel ther
iiwouldougssrl seriously
had done right in calling upon the country to consider
what would, in all probability, be the result of that state
of things for which the Government had said they were
prepared, rather than consent to the union being dis-
solved. He did not apprehend that there was any real
'desire on the part of any portion of the Irish people for a

not deal with unless by abating it. He was convinces
that there would be no peace in Ireland without the re
moval of the Church Establishment. The Right Hon
Gentleman opposite said that they should cherish it a
the apple of their eye; but he would say, in Scriptura
language, "If thine eye offend time, pluck it out.'
—(Cheers and laughter.) That was the mode in whirl
they should deal with the Irish Church. He woulc
make peace in this way—that no more bishops am
deans should be created, and that, upon the death o
every Irish bishop, a regiment should be withdrawn
and a battalion upon the death of every dean.--(Mucl
laughter and cheering.) There would be then a simul•
taneous diminution in the army and the Church, whicl
he had no doubt would contribute much to the pacifica-
tion of Ireland.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and LearneC
Solicitor-General, in his speech last night, said that
there was a great deal of difference between fundamental
laws and other laws. That he considered to be a most
dangerous doctrine. One of the grounds of their con-
stitutional security was that there was no limit in
changing the laws of the Constitution. They had
the power, if they pleased, with the concurrence
of the three branches of the Legislature, of turning the
monarchy into a republic.—(Hear.) That was their
great safeguard, and when the nation wished for a
change they would not be prevented from making it by
any Act of Parliament which the Solicitor-General might
consider fundamental. The real ground upon which he
supported the motion was not owing to any misconduct
in administration on the part of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, but because, in spite of the good intentions of
the Government--in spite of their carrying them out
fairly, and according to the spirit and principle of the
law, he saw a state of things established in Ireland
which this House ought not to sanction ; and his second
reason was, that he was convinced the measures which
the Government proposed were too trifling to produce
any benefical effect, because there was "no sum at the
end of them"—(Cheers)—and he considered their de-
terminationof maintaining the Protestant Church in Ire-
land was tantamount to a permanent war against the
Irish people.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said he quite agreed with
the Hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite had made no progress in their attack
upon her Majesty's Government, and he believed that
his opinion would be sympathised in by the country
at large.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) It had been his
lot, since he had been in Parliament, sometimes,
but always with reluctance, to vote against
her Majesty's Government ; but never did he remem-
ber to have given a vote more sincerely in their favour
than he would now give in .approval of the fairness and
wisdom with which they had conducted the recent af-
fairs in Ireland.—(lronical cheers from the Opposition.)
He did not care how long that debate might interrupt
the business of the House, for he believed that the longer

it continued the stronger would be the position which the
Government would occupy in the opinion of this country.
—(Hear, hear from the Ministerial benches.) The Right
lion. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh had alluded
to the question of the Irish Church. As an individual
he would be content to limit the duration of the Irish

Church to the period when Hon. Gentlemen on the
other side of the House had agreed what they would do
with it.—(Laughter.) Some Honourable Members in-
tended to transfer it to another party, others were for
cutting it in two ; some were for paring it down, others
for cutting it up.—(Laughter.) One Hon. Member pro-
posed, that at the demise of every bishop, they should'
remove a regiment, and of every dean, a battalion.—
(Laughter.) One-Hon. Gentleman had asked her Ma-
jesty's Government to look at the question at large,
and in order to do so he most cautiously
avoided entering into any detail himself.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh,
stated certain grounds on which he said the Established
Church ought not to be rested. It ought not to be
rested, he said, on quotations from Hansard, from old
books, or from Acts of Parliament. He (Mr. S. O'Brien)
quite agreed that unless they could make out a stronger
case for the Established Church in Ireland than could be
made from what Roman Catholic Bishops had said,

they could not go to sea in such a boat. It was not ac-
cording to the spirit of our legislation to exact oaths
from any class of persons ; and we had no knowledge
of any ecclesiastical discipline by which Dr. Doyle, or
any other Roman Catholic Bishop, was able in this
matter to bind his successor.—(Hear, hear, from the Op-
' position.) Unless they could put the case of the Church
of Ireland upon higher grounds, they would make out a
very bad case indeed. The question was, what should
they substitute for the Church if they destroyed it, and
could they hope to introduce a better state of things?
The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) had entered
into a long, historical disquisition concerning Ireland, and
he said that for 250 years the Church of Ireland had not
fulfilled its mission. Now he protested strongly against
the injustice of resting the case of the Irish Church on
the period of 250 years; they must go back to the fifth cen-
tury—the introduction of Christianity into that country.
Let them look also at the bearing of the middle of the 12th
century upon the destinies of Ireland, when all the ills
of Ireland, inherent dissensions, lawless passions, lust of
unjust and ecclesiastical tyranny, combined together to
produce, in unhappy union, the bull of Adrian, the in-
vasion of Henry, the landing of Strongbow, and the
subjugation of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He would next
speak on a subject which he considered had been
almost untouched by any Hon. Gentleman on that side
who had yet spoken in the course of the debate. He
meant the real, practical, every-day grievances,
sorrows, and deprivations of the poorer classes
of the Irish people—and in speaking of the poor
of Ireland, he begged to be understood as alluding
to the frieze coats—not to the men of broad cloth.
The first of those evils to which ho would call
attention, and which he had witnessed in his part of Ire-
land—Clare and Limerick—was the poor-law. This evil
consisted in the inequality of the rate as levied upon the
poor collier and the consequent difficulty of collecting
it. If one half the attention had been paid to the Irish
poor-law which had been bestowed upon the Arms Bill
—(Cheers from the Opposition)—by Hon. Gentlemen
on the Opposition side of the House—(Derisive cheers
from the Ministerial benches)—much good would have
been effected. The next grievance of Ireland was the
state of the medical charities there. That was a sub-
ject which demanded their most earnest and immediate
consideration. The third evil was the progress of the
Board of Public Works which ,he was sorry to say had
been curtailed; and lastly, the exactions under the name
of tolls, to which the peasantry were subjected in
bringing their commodities to market, closed the list
of grievances which the poor of Ireland had to endure
Those were evils which, from his own experience, he
knew to press heavily upon the frieze coats of Ireland.
As for the miserable Whigs, the peasantry of Ireland
cared nothing for them. The only way in which they
(the Whigs) had interested the poor of Ireland, was
by letting convicts out of prison, when they were in
office. Their Lord Lieutenant had inflicted more mis-
chief on that country than any other individual that had
ever held office there.—(Marked signs of disapprobation
from the Opposition, which were accompanied by groans.
The Marquis of Normanby was sitting at the time on
the benches appropriated to Members of the House of
Lords.) The conduct of that Viceroy showed that his
sole object was to court a ridiculous, ostentatious, and
fleeting popularity.—(Groans from the Opposition.)
He had never known any man act so badly—so profli-
gately.—(Loud cries of" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.)
Yes, but the best comment upon the policy of Lord Nor-
manby was the policy pursued by his successor Lord
Fortescue. Did he follow his example?--(Loud cries of
" Question, question.") Hon. Members might cry ques-
tion, but what was the question ? The Noble Lord, the
Member for London, might fancy, at the commencement
of the debate, that he was forwarding the interests of his
party, but he thought that the opinions of the Noble
Lord must now be changed—not merely from
the sentiments expressed by Members on that side
of the House, but from the speeches made by his
own supporters. The Whig ranks were com-
pletely divided and broken; they could unite
upon nothing, and the only question they hoped to agree
upon was Ireland ; and if the Tories were turned out
of office what could be expected from a Whig Govern-
ment ? Where were their principles? Where was
their object? He professed he could see none. The
Anti-Corn-law League—the Repeaters—the Radicals—
all these had principles and objects; but you wretched
Whigs, flattering and coquetting, and gaining nothing for
yourselves but contempt—you are objects of public deri-
sion.—(Laughter and ironical cheers from the Opposition.)
You are like certain public characters who survive their
reputations.—(Renewed laughter.) Mr. O'Connell had
told thousands of the Irish people that the British Par-
liament they could not trust. He (Mr. O'Brien)
would re-echo that sentiment, and if the Hon.
Member for Cork inclined to quote the opinions of so
humble an individual as himself, he was at perfect
liberty to do so. Mr. O'Connell had told the Irish peo-
ple to trust to themselves—that sentiment, too, he (Mr.
O'Brien) echoed. They might destroy the Church—they
might overthrow the institutions of the country—but
they would be followed by a law stronger, wider and more
enduring than all the laws of men—a law which would
tell the people of Ireland— and every people on th e
earth, that it was with nations as with individuals, that
prosperity and happiness could be conferred by no law.
Happiness could not be forced upon the people. The
people of every rank and class mast combine to teach
and practise order—to inculcate obedience to the laws,
and to give a high tone to public feeling. If this happy
union were effected, happiness would be achieved, but agi-
tation, however peaceful, would leave the nation where
it found it—in discontent and disorder.
Sir THOMAS WILDE wished to call the attention
of the House to the real question before the House,
which had been obscured by the risible speech of the
Hon. Gentleman who preceded him. The motion of the
Noble Lord was to form a Committee to consider the
state of Ireland. Whoever had paid any attention to
what had occurred in Ireland lately must know whether
such a motion was fitted for the present occasion or not.
He did not mean to say that Ireland presented any new
state, but surely Ireland could not be suffered to continue
in the same unfortunate condition in which it had been
so long, and it was imperative on the British Parliament
to give their most serious attention to the condition of
that country. Among the complaints of the Irish people
was one that the British Parliament were indifferent to
their real complaints and distresses. He thought the
attention that had been bestowed on the present debate
by the House generally, and by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man at the head of her Majesty's Government in parti-
cular, must repel any complaint on this, score. He
thought it very wise and proper that the House should
hear what Hon. Members had to impart regarding the
condition- of Ireland, and what remedies might be sug-
gested. When they considered the character of that
country in- respect to her soil and resources, and the
many eminent and virtuous persons that it produced,
it was truly lamentable to reflect on her present
distressed state ; it was material to consider how that
country could be governed in a proper manner. It
might be said that the character of the people was pecu-
liar, but it was therefore the more necessary to suit the
Government to their character. A Government which
could not do that, Ivo little worthy of- iopport.

dissolution of the union. If the Government was not pre-
pared to show how Ireland could be governed in a state
of peace and prosperity—if they were not prepared to
alter their policy, then it became most important
that the country should consider what would
be the result of such a state of thirgs.—(Elear.)
He would now refer to a' topic which had been touched
upon by gentlemen on both sides of 'the. House, which
was, that the people of Ireland did not place confidence
in the present Government. He believed that a large
proportion of those in Ireland who were interested most
in the subjects respecting which complaints were made,
did not entertain confidence in the present Government.
They found that large meetings had been held in Ireland
which had excited the greatest alarm. Did the Govern-
ment entertain alarm at those meetine.s? 'He presumed
that they did. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
had been the means of calling those meetings from first
to last, had declared that he did not mean to break the
law. In the other House of Parliament those meetings
were declared to be illegal, and yet what was the policy
of the Government with respect to them? Could any man
imagine why they did not interfere to stop them ? It
might be asked how were they to stop 'them ? Why,
how did they stop them at last ? Why, hewould ask, did
they allow those meetings to continue for nine months ?
The moment the Government issued their proclamation,
that moment the meetings ceased—that moment the
individual who had been instrumental in causing those
meetings, felt it to be his duty to use the utmost exertion
to repair the fault of the Government, and to make up
for their delay, and to prevent public mischief. The
moment the proclamation was issued it was obeyed. What
reason had they to suppose that a similar proclamation
issued earlier would not have allayed all the, anxiety
and alarm that arose from those meetings? Was it that
they preferred destroying an individual to preserving
the peace of Ireland?—(Cheers.) . Was it for the pur-
pose of laying a trap to catch a political opponent?
They were willing to let the spirit of rebellion grow up
for many months. They were willing to permit dis-
affection to arise, and they made no attempt to arrest
its progress. They had prepared themselvqs with
troops to put down violence when it should break out
into open acts, but they had permitted that spirit of
disaffection to spread and increase. Had they done
this merely for the purpose of giving their reporters
an opportunity of catching heated and inflammotory sen-
tences that were uttered here and . there, and now and
then? Was that a proper course of policy .to pursue?—
(Hear, hear.) If the , Government -had felt that the
meetings which had been held in Ireland were incon-
sistent with the public interest and public safety, they
ought to have made an effort to repress them ? What,
however, did they do ? They permitted the people of
Ireland to suppose that those meetings were unobjec-
tionable and lawful. They were not disturbed. They
were permitted to extend and grow, and the people of
Ireland were thus seduced into the idea that these meet-

ir gs were consistent with the law. This was it—serious
charge against the Government.. It had been laid down
from the Bench that men who had attended the last
meeting could be taken as having adopted all the senti-
ments promulgated at the other meetings for the pre-
vious nine months ? Thus an innocent man who hap-
pened to be present at the last meeting found himself in
the situation of being charged with the adoption of
violent expressions— expressions • which had sub-
jected the parties to a very serious prosecution.
It was allowed upon all hands that if Mr. O'Connell
had not exerted himself to preserve the peace at Clon-
tarf, a crisis would have arrived, which he could not ac-
cuse the Government of contemplating, and he was cer-
tain that the poor people who crowded there never
anticipated.—(Cheers.) The meeting was to take place
on Sunday, and the proclamation was issued at three
o'clock on the Saturday.—(Cheers.) Not all the world
could convince him that the course taken by the Govern-
ment was impartial, or that there was any intention
to show that they were disposed to govern Ireland im-
partially.—(Cheers.) Mr. O'Connell felt, and he would
have been wrong if he did not feel, that upon him,
would -rest the responsibility if any evil consequences
had ensued.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.)
So soon as the Ministerial proclamation was issued Mr.
O'Connell obeyed it, and he did the most difficult thing
in the world, he compelled a discontented and irritable
multitude to be as patient as he was himself.—(Cheers.)
There had been many meetings, the result of which
was merged in one, which might have been included in
one count of the indictment.—(Hear, hear.) The'Right
Honourable the Secretary for the Horne Depart-
ment had said that he did not stand there
to defend the Coercion Bill of the late Government.

He (Sir T. Wilde) should have thought that the
Hon. Baronet, having been a party to that, was not
. now going to shrink from the responsibility which at-
tached to it. Deeply as that Bill had to be lamented.
its necessity at the time was undoubted ; and that ne-
cessity had been mainly created by the Tories them-
selves. The Whigs having comeinto power after a long
series of Tory misgovernment, it took a long time to
remedy the wrongs they had inflicted. And he strongly
suspected it would be found a much more easy matter
to defend the Coercion Bill than those prosecutions—
(Cheers.) Such a law might be called for as a tem-
porary measure, but it formed no part of the Constitu-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) The evil lasted fora time, but the
Constitution was not hurt.— (Cheers.) But when they
came to stretch the law, as the Government had done in
the present instance, for the destruction of public
liberty, they then inflicted a wound—aye, an incurable
wound—upon the Constitution.—(Cheers.) Let them
look at the various Bills, Coercion Bills, Arms Bills, and
others, which necessity required theni to pass from time
to time, when the period arrived at which they could
allow them to expire, the evil was at an end, and the
general Constitution remained unhurt.—(Cheers.) But
this prosecution would remain as a precedent, and when
added to the many bad ones which already existed in
our history, it would give an example to Ministers to do
that which he sincerely believed it was far from the
wish of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R: Peel) to at-
tempt. But the
,precedent was furnished, and most as-
suredly he (Sir rhos. Wilde) looked upon it as one
most inconsistent with public liberty. If .Mr. O'Connell
had uttered sedition--4ad spoken sedition in his
speeches, published it in his writings, or practised it in
his conduct—or if he had by any other means excited
the people to discontent and disaffection, then, by all
means, let the Government indict him - for it.—(Hear,
hear.) If he had by
any illegal means attempted to
overawe the Government or. disturb the peace and safety
of the empire, let him, he repeated, be indicted. He
was amenable to the law for his conduct; but
do not let them twist the law so as to make
a charge of conspiracy and that under circum-
stances which might be'afterwards used to prevent
agitation by even the most legal means.—(Hear,
hear.) His Honourable and Learned Friend the Soli-
citor-General had said something last evening about the
late Government having something to do with indict-
ments as well as the present one. Not such indict-
ments as that on which he was noW to, comment. He
put it to his Hon. and Learned Friend 'whether it was
was not true that the forms of indictment under which
Mr. O'Connell had been tried had never come under
the consideration of any one who had not lamented
it? Throughout Westminster-hall it was detested, and
to such cases as the one under consideration was now
never applied in this country.—(Cheers.) Would his
Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General at-
tempt in England to indict a man, and get a verdict
against him, for a speech he had never uttered, or for a
paragraph in a newspaper which he had never seen?—
(Loud cheers.) He asked his Learned Friend the plain
question whether, in his long experience, he had ever
known that form of indictment even referred to with-
out being stigmatised in the strongest terms of disap-
probation?—(Loud cheers.) Whoever attended Jo the
form of that indictment, and followed
it up by a con-
sideration of the -law, as laid down by the Lord
Chief Justice, would readily be able to see and to ap-
preciate its character. It charged that the traversers
conspired to excite disaffection and hatred, and, by
means of physical force, endeavoured to overawe the.ef
Legislature. The law, as laid down by the Lord Chief
Justice, was, that if persons associated and combined
to effect, by their joint efforts, an illegal object, or
were
com-
bined to effect a legal object by illegal mean, then
they guilty of a breach of the law. He (Sir T. Wilde)
did not except to that law, but he did except to
its application.—(Hear,hear.)o
Hear N w he asked, had or
had not the people of Ireland a right to meet to discuss
their grievances and obtain a redress'of them? • He pre-
sumed the right to meet and disciiSis, and take measures
for redress was not questioned ?—(Marks of assent from
the Treasury benches.). Why, did they ever hear of a
meeting for the discussion of grievances where there
was not discontent ? Where there was no discontent

what was the object of the meeting?---..(Hear, hear.) Was
it the privilege of the people only‘to meet to excite con-
tentment or originate affection?—(Cheers and laughter.)
They might excite disaffection in a manner to make it
unlawful, but it required great care in a judge when
showing what ought to excite and what ought not to ex-
cite discontent. But the indictment against Mr. O'Con-
nell was, in fact, a perfect indictment for high treason.
In the trial of Lord George Gordon, the very words
in which this indictment was framed Were the words in
which Lord Mansfield laid down the, law, that such at-
tempt was high treason; and this had been followed by
overt acts. It therefore was a complete and perfect in-
dictment for high treason. But were these traversers
the only persons m the empire who had, by their joint
efforts, endeavoured to raise discontent and dis-
affection, and, by ovet awing the Legislature. to
bring the la w into contempt ? What had been
done in reference to the poor-law.—(Loud cheers.)
What answer was to be made by certain lion. Members
of that House when questioned as to their conduct and
speeches touching the poor-law?—(Cheers.) What was
to be said of the Times newspaper ? What of the papers
-speeches and
published by Mr. Oastler ?—(Great cheers.) Let them
articles—and
take the speeches of certain Hon. Members when upon
the hustings, or at public meetings, in reference to the
papers—letpoor-law.takee the
TMintre.io
leadingastl r:s
according to the law as administered to Mr. O'Connell,
themet them
tak
there was as clear a conspiracy as ever was hatched.—
(Cheers.) Look at what had been written and said of
the slave trade, and of and on various other public
measures—aye, and exciting and discontent
between one branch of her Majesty's subjects and another.
He said the English Parliament did not consider their
interest, that it had no sympathy with them, that it did
not legislate for their benefit ; and he had a right to say
all that if he beiieved lit. He had a right, in order to
induce the people to petition that House for a repeal of
the union, to use those arguments, if he believed the
union to be mischievous. But if he used those argu-
ments he was guilty of this act of conspiracy and sedi-
tion. Now, in describing the indictment for conspiring
to do these several things, the Learned Judge gives this
direction—" It is true the indictment sets forth certain
overt acts, but no one of these acts need be proved—
the crime consisted in the agreement, not the acts."
Therefore though not one of these acts should be
proved, still the traversers might be guil4.-
v of conspiracy.
Having by this mode rendered the acts comparatively
unimportant, he says to the jury f' you may infer the'
agreement from these persons acting in cow on and

rBE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEtiIiEJARY 21, 1844.

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
speech, as reported, as evidence of his conspiring with
the newspaper." Now, nobody could approve of the lan-
guage 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 bona fide object.—(Hear,
bear, from the Ministerial benches.) They were un-
doubtedly dangerous, not from any intention on the part
of the Hon. 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-
flammation—so likely to be operated on by unexpected
causes, that they were likely to endanger the public
peace.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerialbenches.) He
also much disapproved of the Hon. and 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. He disapproved of this
language, just as much agthe 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 qther, 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 careful watch
over the administration of justice. He 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, at a time
when Parliament was 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 safety 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 la* ? He 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 bad and profligate Government
might desire could be done by the law of indietment.--7
(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
mecaynfo thoseras s
country, which could only exist by giving public infor-
mation on interesting events, prosecuted for a conspi-
racy,
illocei.agtailngmetoanpsrcoocnusirestlinegalg
of objects by v
y
illegaliolent
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.—(Plear.) The law as underitood 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 be 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
—he 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 fax 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. With
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 inform, 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-
secution 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
supposed 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 chargedwith having done,
but done with -infinitely greater effect. They had de-
stroyed the confidence of the Irish people in the admi-
nistration 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 he 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
seatences 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
up 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 be ever so fa-
vourable to his case, yet when the 'speech' in reply comes
and after it the Learned Judge's summing up, he must,
say that juries—who were not generally composed of
persons whol were taught 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
had been uttered.—(Hear.) No distinct directions were
given marking the boundary oflegitimate 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, during 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.
Sheil.) 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 tq,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 these 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 tt 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 gene 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 common 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 the Court of Dublin before presented such a scene.
The revision was at length completed, and when appli-
cation was made by the traversers to see the lists they
were told that the Right Mon. Gentleman bad taken
them with him to England.
Mr. SHAW—That is not so. It is quite untrue.
Sir T. WILDE dill not doubt for one moment what
the Right Hon. Gentleman said, but lid Sir Thomas
Wilde), the cause of the people of gng, relied upon