The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-01 00:00:00

POOR-LAWS.

Mr. CHORLEY presented a petition complaining of
the operation of the poor-laws.
CORN-LAWS.
Lord OSSULSTON presented two petitions from the
county of Northumberland, one signed by 359 persons,
praying for protection to agriculture, and trusting that
the House would discountenance the proceedings of the
Anti-Corn-law League.
GAME-LAWS.

Mr. WALLACE moved that the petition from the
counties of Renfrew, Ayr, and Lanark, on the subject of
game, be printed with the votes.—Agreed to.
RAILWAYS.

Mr. GLADSTONE brought up the Report of the
Select Committee on railways. He moved that the
Report be printed with the votes, and he trusted it would
be in the hands of Hon. Members to-morrow.—
Agreed to.
THE PRESS.—TIIE STATE TRIALS.

On the motion of Mr. S. HERBERT, that the Order
of the Day for going into Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to "move for a return of
all moneys paid to Frederick Bond Hughes,Charles Ross,
and John Jackson, on account of any communications
made by them to Government relative to the repeal
agitation in Ireland, distinguishing the amounts paid to
each ; also, the dates of the several payments, specify-
ing the respective periods it which they commenced ;
together with copies of any instructions given to the
above named Frederick Bond Hughes, Charles Ross, and
John Jackson, with respect to the duties to be per-
formed by them in Ireland. Also, a return of the
amount paid to the above named for expenses during
their attendance at the trial of the Queen against
O'Connell and others. Also, a return of all moneys paid
to the late or present proprietor or proprietors, mana-
gers, conductors, or persons in the employ of the Morn-
ing Herald and Standard newspapers, or any of them, on
account of communications or information made or
given by the said parties, or any of them, to the Govern-
ment, in reference to the repeal agitation in Ireland;
distinguishing the times at which the said communica-
tions or informations were furnished, and the period at
which the several sums of money were paid. Also, the
name or names of the shorthand writers appointed
to furnish the Government report of the proceedings
at the trial of the Queen against O'Connell and others."
He said, in rising to call the attention of the House to the
motion of which he had given notice, he did not wish to
obstruct the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale.
nor to delay the House from going into the Committee of
Supply. He rose in the exercise of the undoubted right
every member of that House possessed, of calling on the
Government, before voting any additional supplies, to
explain the manner in which it had already applied any of
those sums of money that had been placed at the disposal
of the Government, for the purposes of the public service.
More especially was it the duty of that House to look
into these matters when there was good reason to believe
that the sums already voted had been applied in a man-
ner not creditable or honourable. He believed that the
object of the recent state prosecutions was, in the first
place, to vindicate what was called the majesty of the
law, and, in the next place, to obtain an increased respect
for the institutions of the country by inspiring public
confidence in the wisdom and justice of the law.—(Hear,
hear.) He had carefully attended to the debate which
had taken place lately in that House, having reference to
the State trials, and he had thoughtfully weighed the
evidence given at them, and he must say he found it
totally impossible, in the whole transactions, to find
any portion of them creditable either to the judge who
presided, to the jury who were impannelled, to the law
officers who instituted the proceedings—to any, indeed,
of the parties concerned, but especially to some of those
persons who were witnesses on the part of Crown. The
branch of the subject to which, on the present occasion,
he wished to call the attention of the House was that
relative to the conduct pursued by the Government
towards the press, and those connected with or em-
' ployed by it, An arbitrary Government had two ways
of destroying the liberty of the press--either by per-
secution or by corruption —by straining the law
against the press, or by corrupting the persons con-
nected with it. The present Government had pursued
both these courses. They were not satisfied with cor-
rupting the members of the press, but they attacked and
persecuted it in such a way as he was perfectly satisfied
the law would not justify. That question, however,
would be distinctly brought forward by an Hon. Mem-
ber at a future time ; and he would not, therefore,
trouble the House with more than one observation in re-
ference to it upon the present occasion. He would just ob-
serve, that such a charge—the charge of conspiracy—so
framed and so supported, as ithad been recently in Ireland,
never had been, and never dared be, attempted in Eng-
land. It was contrary to the law, and that had been
distinctly ruled so on a trial in the year 1840 at Lan-
caster, not only by the Attorney-General, but by the
presiding Judge on the occasion, Baron Rolfe. They
had seen in Dublin the strange sight of Mr. O'Connell
being made responsible for articles published in
Dublin newspapers which he never saw, and of making
the newspapers and the proprietors responsible for
speeches which others uttered and they never heard.
At that trial the Attorney-General and Baron Rolfe
distinctly stated that the only party responsible for
the articles in a newspaper was the proprietor, and that
even the editor was not to be held so, although he might
be one of the parties charged with the conspiracy. But
this was not the subject to which he wished to direct the
attention of the House. He wished to call their atten-
tion to that portion of the subject relating to the
reporters who had been employed by the Govern-
ment, and those connected with the public press,
who had been corrupted by the Government to aid their
purposes in those trials. He asserted that if the object
of those prosecutions had been to create a great moral
influence, all the transactions in connection with them
ought to bear the light of the day, and there could be
not the slightest objection to making them public. He
thought the conduct of the Attorney-General for
Ireland towards Mr. Bond Hughes was most extraordi-
nary, and he (Mr. Duncombe), in exercising his right as
a Member of that House, in moving for these re-
turns, did not in the slightest degree intend
to impugn that Gentleman's conduct or character.
It was quite clear, from the speech of the counsel for the
traversers, that they acquitted him of any underhand
proceeding. The party, therefore, who had most reason
to complain of the conduct of the Government was Mr.
Bond Hughes himself. With respect to the mistake
that had been made in the name of Mr. Barrett, it was
quite clear that the Attorney-General for Ireland was
perfectly aware of it ; and it was also quite evident that
the Crown solicitor and his clerk were also perfectly cog-
nisant of that mistake, and could have rectified it by the
dash of a pen, and thus put an end to the persecution
to which that gentleman was subjected. It was also
quite clear that Mr. Bond Hughes when he attended on
the Crown solicitor told him about the mistake with re

spect to the name of Mr. Barrett. Mr. Kemmis, after
Mr. Hughes had been indicted for swearing to the
fact, still persisted in his endeavours to have it
proved. He (Mr. Buncombe) thought this most
discreditable to Mr. Kemmis. In the Pilot news,

paper of the 26th of January it was remarked that
when Mr. Barrett went to lodge informations, he had no

means of knowing whether 111 r. Bond Hughes was wil:
fully wrong, because he could give no in-
formation or explanation on the subject.—(Hear.)
It was also remarked that Mr. Kemmis, the Crown So,
licitor, stated before the magistrate that Mr. Hughes was
not in the kingdom. He said he considered the present
proeeeding a most extraordinary one, for Mr. Hughes
had remained several days in Dublin after he swore his

information, and yet no attempt had been made to
impeach his veracity. The magistrate, it seemed,

refused the summons, because he thought that the
granting of it would prejudice the prosecution as
Mr. Hughes ,was out of the country. Why would
the House--4-would the country believe that Mr. Hughes
left Ireland by the desire of the Solicitor of the Crown?
—(Hear, hear.) Me was told that unless he left Ire-
land his life would not be safe. Why should not his life
be safe? Could they not have made his life safe imme-
diately, and have quieted all the denunciations directed
against him by stating publicly that he had not com-
mitted wilful perjury ?—(Hear, hear.) He understood
from the friends of Mr. Hughes that he was not at all
aware that he was to be a party to informations, and
that he would rather have cut off his right hand than
consent to be a party to any.—(Hear, hear.) Mr.
Hughes was not a person who would descend to become
a common informer. The fact was, he was deceived by
the Solicitor for the Crown, having been told that he
was only swearing an affidavit, and verifying his notes,
whilst it turned out that he was laying an information.
—(Hear, hear.) Was such duplicity ever practised to-
wards any individual as was practised on this occasion
towards Mr. Bond Hughes. When Mr. Hughes was sent
over, he was desired on his arrival in Dublin to go to the
Attorney-General. It appeared that the Attorney-General
being out he went to Mr. Brewster, and from Mr.
es h e withwas thefo theser s
u m s
ißnrsetruwsetteironhse
trheacteihveednhoiws instructions. tti.9ogn

of money that had been paid to Mr. Bond Hughes ; not
that he believed that any bum of money could compen7