The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-19 00:00:00

TEE SUN. LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 19, 1842.

the neat of kiu was satisfied with the j ury, . The agent, , The Right Hon. Gentleman was not there to substan-
lon the contrary, statt-d that he had received. LIT fiat of iate those eharges„—(Hear, hear.) But though there
jurymeri ott the panel the night previous to the trig,. was silence within the walls of Parliament, the organs
that he might mark those whom ha thought it his they of the party were not miletth The Liberal papers had
to challenge ; and he did, set aLideEeveral who had Leen l':4.taitiatl those chtcrgcr, and if Hon. Gentlemen believed
empanelled, tbc. the p-,,,rpose chailqginp; ebarg.?s to be 4-Jell foundad, they abandoned their
Court the :,.-f-xt; tiay h 3 urged the ne'.:,?slaty of challenging trast by ailmaing. the Government to (Tape so long.
those persons ; and the Crown Solicitor hi:nself re- -1(1-1ear, hear.) Before he proceeded to the charges
quested that one of those persons should stand by, nut made by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he
the Attorney-General refused to allow any challenge be;:,-,,ed to acknowledge his courtesy, and the frank and
whatever.—(Elear, hear.) The statement that there manly manner with which lie conducted himself on this
was no desire to challenge was certainly a mistake. The occasion. Ile had given him (Lord Eliot) notice of
jury consisted of eleven :ProteStants and one Catholic ; the charges he intended to bring against the Govern-
the ease went on, and the charge or the Judge was stated meat. which enabled him to give them a full answer.
to be such it one as strongly to induce a conviction. The The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had referred
i writer of this statenmit to him (Mr. Shiel) stated that to a speech made by hint to his constituents in Corn-
Mr. Ilohues and himself were counsel for the next of wall. That speech was a spontaneous declaration of his
kiu. Until the very last moment the Attorney-General -own feelings. lie was not called on for any declaration
would not allow the agent to retain them. They then tof his opinions, but he thought it proper to state
went to the Court immedi„tcly they received the views he entertained—views which he entertained
their briefs, and, when they entered, they found long before lie became connected with the office he had
the Jury already sworn. Now, was it right to sa:.: the honour •to -Itold.—(Hear, lean) The Right lion.
that the counsel for the next of kin made no objection to Gentleman also adverted to the answer of the Lord Lieu-
the jury ? true, he made no oldectiout but they had no tenant to the address presented to lien on his anival in
opportamity.----(llear, bear.) The counsel were pre- Ireland. Now, he would tell the llight Hull. 11.1111
vented from challenging., but the agent fer the next of &anted Gentleman that they lied adhered to the deck-
kin, who was the Lilly poison in
.a position to object,. did rato ;
ms they made to the letter and spirit.—(llear, hear.)
Si), but in vain. So mucirror that ease, tried in Down. .The Right Hon. Gentleman had accused them of it mal7
He would turn now to the ease of it catholic, who was distritnitio, of . G °rerun:tent patronage, and that they
put upon his trial at Armagh. The case he alluded to ought have given it.without referenco to. religiotts
was that of Francis Hes
ukh, a Catholic, who had been lineal feelings. In the general administration of jastice
tried three times fur murder ; twice the jury could not no one party was allowed to domineer over the other—
agree, and upon the third occasion, upon calliog over the aseendancy of religious feelings wits over—but if the
the jury, it was fbund that tell Catholics and two Frotes- principle of the Right Hun. Gentleman tyere cayri-d out,

tants only answered to their naineS, and several a them
were set aside because they had ex pressed opinions favour-
able to the prisoner. Were such trausa.!tions to he per-
mitted ? Thcpanel was proceeded with, and the Crown
challenged every Roman Catholic until a jury was thrtned.
Now, how many Catholics had been challenged. There
were ten of them on the panel, and every one of them
had been set aside.—(flear, hear.) A jury exclusively.
Protestant was empanelled to try a man who had already
been twice tried for his life ; they found him guilty.
An expozAulation- had becti sent to the Castle, calling
for mercy ; that expostulation had nut ben listened to,
and, protesting his innocence to God, the man suffered
death ,upon the, scatfuld.—(Hear, hear.) The brdad,
facts stood thus ;—Theiman had been twice acquitted
.ten Catholic jurors had been -'tiet elide on a subsequent
:trial, and the man was found guilty and executed. He
did not find that the AttOrney7General had • given any.
inatructions, respecting the, challenging of„ Roman Car
tholiojpro.ils
,;abut Mr. Brady 'mid, that -ordinary
,pUbE•,-
men'Who.mig4 be suppOsed to be in any ovay.des:
pendant on the friends of the guilty parties, should. bi
set aside. This was a most reasonable objection, but
they might as well call all large wine' merchants publi-
cans, merely because they had a spirit license: Whether
the rest were ordinary publicans or nut, he did not knew,
but certainly one of them was of the description he had
stated.- Four of them were challenged ;- why, lie
could not guess ; they appeared to be men of
property and independence, and above the in-
fluence cf the lower orders of society. One of them,
Archibald Macdonald was employed to build tha Roman
Catholic Church of Armagh. 'Three of them, lie un- !
derstood, had been objected to on a former trial—that
of Woods. He cared not whether such things were dose
by Whigs or Tories—the system was radically wrong.
He had concealed nothing from them ; he had stated
all he knew on the subject. Under a former Attorney-
General, whose feelings were more in accordance with
those of the people, with two mixed juries, no 'convic-
tion took place, but when they excluded all Catholics
from the jury a conviction was procured. This trial,
he could tell them, had created a great sensation in the
north of Ireland ; the great mass of the people knew
not why these men were eat aside, nor had any expla-
nation been given up to the present. The Roman
Catholic Primate of Ireland, Dr. Croly, was nut
a man of violent politics, he seldom intermed-
dled with them, lie was an opponent of the re-
peal of the 'Union. A petition from such a man ad-
dressed to this House on such a subject, deserved, and he
should have thought would have received, the most so-
lemn attention. The Government had acknowledged
that they had received great assistance from the Roman
Catholic clergymen of the south of Ireland, yet that
petition had passed the House almost without comment.
Dr. Croly said, " a deep sense of wrong would widely
pervade the Roman Catholics of Ulster, the equality
s
secured them by law was violated, and if the Govern-
ment should make any distinction between them:. and
their Protestant fellow subject." He confessed that a
rash—a worse than rash article—appeared in the
Belfitst Vindicator, in reference to this trial,and the Attor-
ney-General lost not a moment in prosecuting. the paper.
From the year 1835 to 1841, when the Wings were in -
power, though the Irish Government was subjected to
the most virulent invectives, there was not a single pro-
secution of the Press took place. Since the Tories came
into power their Attorney-General, Mr. Francis Black-
burne, had distinguished himself as much by his
alacrity at one time as by his supineness in another. Mr.
Biddulph's case was an instance. That gentleman, who
was a, Magistrate, had advised the very men whose lives
he proceeded against, to abscond, and yet he was not
discharged from the commission of the public peace.
This was a case which appeared in all the newspapers,
and yet Lord De Grey never heard of it. His Attorney-
General made no report of it to him. It appeared
in all the newspapers, and Lord De Grey had
never read it.—(llear, hear.) Here was crassa
negligentiu. Mr. Blaekburne, within one year, had
instituted prosecutions against the Newry Examiner and
the Belfast Vindicator. Let them see what was the ,
.course adopted by the Crown in the prosecution of the
editor of the latter paper. They might suppose that in
Dublin, the majority of householders of which were
Roman Catholics, that persons of that profession would
not be excluded in panneling a jury. But it was other-
wise. The process of striking a jury was this—out of
48 persons selected, the Crown Solicitor struck off 12,
and the defendant's solicitor 12. The remaining 24 were
called the reduced list. In the original 48, on this occa-
sion, nine were Catholics, and on the reduced list only
one was left, and that too on a prosecution for a
libel in a newspaper commenting on the trial at
Armagh, where ten Roman Catholics were struck off
the jury. For that no reason whatever_ was
assigned. That might not appear to them monstrous ;
it appeared to him (Mr. Shiel) to be so. Let them now
come to the trial. The Right Hon Francis Blackburne,
and the lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sergeant Jack-
son), who left Parliament to attend the trial, conducted-
the prosecution for the Crown.- The Attorney-Gcneral
said that in that case the truth would be no defence; he
would not go into the facts at all. The Judge some-
times said that the truth was no defence ; but for the
Attorney-General to say so, was entirely unwar-
ranted. There was one Catholic on the jury. He
was afraid he approved of this practice, and then the
Chief Justice got up and delivered his charge, which he
commenced thus :—" Was there ever a more diaboliCal
libel than that ? In my opinion never ; yet it is said
to have been an innocent publication. I am not to
decide that question, but I give you my opinion, that
this is a gross and infamous libel, and that is nut
mincing the matter."—(Laughter.) He would net
follow the example of the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Colonies, and vote for submitting the charge of
Baron Smith to a Committee of the House of Commons.
But he (Mr. Spiel) must make one observation on what
had fallen from Chief Justice Pennefather. Chief
Justice Pennefather and the. Attorney-General both
concurred in saying that the Press had not a right to
say anything whatever about the Attorney-General—
(Hear, hear)—no matter how infamous the Attorney-
General might be, no matter how scandalous might be
his conduct ; if he were a second Jeffries he was not to
he the subject of comment by the Press. Both concurred
in stating that the only way of obtaining relief from any
misdeeds by the Attorney-General was by petition
to the House of COMMOIIS. He would avail himself of

.
net the patronagoif Government given indiscriminately,
it would put an eed to all political combhuitions—(l fear,
heer)-Tand it was a principle upon which no Govern-
ment ever lied. acted •or ever could eat. The Right
lonourable Gentleman called the attention of the house
to the law appointments, and alluded to the case -of
Mr. Monaghan. He (Lord Eliot) begged to say, that
the retention of Mr. Monaghan would let incompatible
with the principles on which the Government acted.—
(Hear, hear.) Mr. Monaghan was ail advocate kir the
repeal of the Ilnitm.—((.•ries of" No, no.") At all events
he was a strong partisan, and he believed that Mr.
Monaghan would be as sorry to retain his office if
()tiered to hint, as the Government weak! IN wrong in
proposing it ter his acceptanee.-7,‘"Hear' hear.) .The
Right Hon, and Learned Gentleman 'had referred- to
Mr. Brewster as an ardent political partisan, and other
parties had referred to what was called "an
exterminator." • • Now he (Lord Eliot) believed that.
those charges were unfounded, and he was happy to have
kin his power to contradict them. The Noble Lord here
read en,ex tract relative to the circumstances under which
Mr: Brewster had ejected certain tenants f.torn his es-
tate in Carlow. It appeared that the parties ejected
were refractory tenants, who were notorious in the neigh-
bourhood fur the irregularity of their conduct, that they
had never paid any rent, and that Mr. Brewster ad-
warmed them some money on their leaving his estate.
With respect to the appointment of Baron Lefroy, upon
which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had laid
so much stress, he should first ask the Right Hon Gen-
tleman whether he would accept that species of political
sodality which he sought to fix upon his opponents? He
had heard of gentlemen who had been offered high offices
whose conduct had been denounced by a speech from the
throne.—(Hear, hear.) But he would place this matter
On higher grounds; instead of seeking to throw blame
on others, he would defend the appointment on its
own merits. It was his firm belief that the Govern-
ment would have acted most unjustly if it had
passed over the claims of Mr. Baron Lefroy. He be-
lieved that no gentleman had higher claims to the con-
sideration of the Govermnent than Baron Lefroy. For
his own part, he had the highest opinion of him, and was
satisfied that he would be numbered among those Judges
who hail graced the. Irish Bench. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had adverted to the appointment of his Noble
Friend (Sergeant Jackson) ; in his presence he could not
advert to his many estimable qualities, but he was hound
to say, with respect to him, that from his official con-
nexion he had derived the sincerest satisfaction and
gratification. • Another appointment that had been
spoken of was, that of Mr. Sergeant Warren. Now, with
respect to that gentleman, he must say that if there had
been any wish on the part of the Government, their in-
clinations would have led them to appoint Mr. West ;
but they thought that professional distinction was entitled
to consideration. They considered, however high Mr.
West stood, Mr. Warren stood • higher, and
therefore he was entitled to the appointment.
He did not believe that one of the appointments made
by the present Government was influenced by political
principle or religious creeds. Let them look, for ex-
ample, to the appointment of the Bishop of Ossory,
whose appointment rested solely upon the fact that he
stood pre-eminent above his fellows in knowledge, learn-
ing, and piety.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman next referred to the appointment of Crown pro-
secutors by the Attorney-General.- He (Lord Eliot)
would say that those appointments had been distributed
without reference to political or religious opinions.
There were as many appointments on one side as the
other. The Right Hon. Gentleman also referred to cer-
tain proceedings at the elections, and hinted that nedue
influence had been used by a Noble Friend of his (Lord
Eliot). His Noble Friend (Lord Jocelyn) was the son
of one of the most popular and universally-beloved. -No-
blemen in Ireland, and he was requested to stand for
Dublin ; his Noble Friend was, however, otherwise en,
gaged, and though he could not stand for Dublin, he pro-
mised to canvas for the Conservative candidate. He held
a situation at the time in the Lord Lieutenant's House-
hold, but he (Lord Eliot) was convinced that he made
no use of any influence which he might possess from
that circumstance.—(Hear, hear.) llis Noble Friend
would no doubt answer for hint elf.—(Hear, hear.)
With regard to Mr. Gregory, the Government had not
proceeded beyond fair and legitimate bounds. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had adverted to the refusal of the
Government to remove the Sheriff from office. A more
monstrous proposition could not be made to any Govern-
ment. ; what would have been said of any Lord Lieute-
nant who, previous to a general election, should remove
a Liberal gentleman from office, and plain a party-man of
their own ? He had also laid sonic stress on a trumpery
application of Mr. Sheriff' Browne to the late Govern-
ment ; but it was made in March, 1831, three or four
months before the general election, and without re-
ference to election proceedings. Several measures had
been submitted to the House relating to Ireland,
which he hoped would become the law of the land.
One of these; the Drainage Bill, would tend to improve
the productiveness of the soil ; another to consolidate
various old and obsolete statutes ; and another to give •
effect to the intentions of the framers of the Municipal
Corporation Act He thereeore thought the taunts of
the Right Hon. Gentleman were undeserved. He would
now refer to the case of the trial of M'Ardle for murder,
and Vi ould read the statement of the Attorney-General
respecting it, and he believed he had neither misunder-
stood nor misrepresented the case. The next case was
that in
_which it was said a Protestant was acquitted by
a Protestant jury, and a Catholic convicted by a Pro-
testant jury—the case of Francis Hughes. In the
last trial nine of those who were set aside by the
Crown had been set aside on the former trials.
The juror M'Donald, who had been adverted to by
the Right Hon. Gentleman, was objected to on account of
certain parties declaring that they would not believe
him on his oath. Two of the per_ons objected to, it was
remarkable, were placed upon a trial—a trial for misde-
meanour—the day after Hughes was tried; those persons
were sworn to try a case of Ribbonism. On the jury
were nine Protestants end three Catholics. The case
was as clear as possible. Nothwithstanding this the
three persons refused to agree to a verdict, and the con-
sequence was, that no verdict had been given in the
ease, and that was a case in which a defendent offered
no defence. After Hughes' trial and conviction, a peti-
tion of mercy was set by his wife, and his (Lord Eliot's)
Noble Friend, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. having

that suggestion, and ask for a Committee of Inquiry.
If the Noble Lord opposite intended to honour him by re-
plying to him, he would have to enter into minute
details, and the Noble Lord would find that the granting
of a Committee would be by far the most advantageous
mode of proceeding, in order to give the Attorney-
General for Ireland the means of reinstating himself ia
the opinion of tho House of Commons.—(Cheers.) He
would now refer to the case of Mr. St. George. Mr. tit.
George had been dismi,ised from tho Magistracy for •
writing an offensive letter to the Marquis of Normanhy.
When the present Goverment came into ohice, six
Magistrates—not the whole of the Magistracy, that was
incorrect, but six Magistrates--three of whom had signed
a memorial to Lord Nurmanby, had in 1841 sent a peti-
tion to the Marquis of Clanricarde, praying for Mr. St.
George's restoration. Let the House recollect that that
high-minded man the Duke of Wellington, hr.d stated
that Mr. St. George had been justly dismissed. The
petition praying for the restoration of Mr. St. George to
the Magistracy, had been forwarded by the Marquis of
Clanricarde. The present Chancellor of Ireland, to his
great honour—(Cheors)—although differing from the
Marquis of Nor7;anby in politics, saw in him the re-
presentative of his Sovereign, and demanded that some
apology or explanation should be offered for his insult to
the delegate of the Crown before he should be reinstated.
Lord Clanricarde came to the determination of pro-
ceeding with the charge. An apology was demanded.
Mr. St. George declared that he never would give any
apology or explanation. Lord Clanricnrde, as Lord
Lieutenant of the county, did not enter upon it further.
He saw at once that when an apology was refused, the
original insult was refreshed.—(Hear, hear.) What
was the surprise of everybody acquainted with the de-
tails and circumstances, that although the apology was
demanded—that although Mr. St. George made the most
peremptory intimation that he would not retract a single
syllable of what he had written—yet the Chancellor
and the Government reinstated him in the administra-
tion of justice, whose functionaries, they were often told,
should not be selected from party men? When he
(Mr. Shiel) asked the question of the Noble Lord,
he admitted the original offence—the extent of
that offence—the demand fur an apology—which,
when made, was refused. Mr. St. George 17as
reinstated, and then he added a subsequent application,
to which the Lord Chancellor and the Government gave
way. Thu Original offence was no secret, the demand
for an apology was no secret, the refusal of an apology
was no secret, but the last application was asecret, and it
ought to be divested of its clandestine character.and sub-
mitted to the cognisance and judgment of the House of
Commons. He txs pardon for having detained the
House so long. The Right H Gentles aon. n concluded
with the motion of which he had given notice.
' Mr. J. O'BRIEN seciaithd the motion.
Lord ELIOT said he nj, deed that an opportunity was
at length offered for the vindication of the conduct of
the Irish Government, and of showing that the charges
brought against them were destitute of foundation. The
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Member fur
Cork, presented a petition to that Home in April last, to
which the Right Bon. Gentleman had just adverted, and
in that petition the Government of Ireland was charged
with tampering with the administration of justice.

occasion to leave Ireland, appointed the two law officers
of the Crown to act iu his place. The Lord Chan-
cellor thought it his duty to examine into the
circumstances, and he took the utmost pains to investi-'
gate every circumstance connected with the transaction.
He had a personal interview with the Solicitor for the
Crown, also with the Counsel for the prisoner, and he
inspected the Judges' notes, and his conviction was that
the prisoner was guilty. - (The Noble Lord then read a
letter from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, detailing the
circumstances of the murder of Mr. Powell.) The Lord
Chancellor having conic to that opinion upon due consi-
deration, there was no alternative left him but to order
the man for execution. lie (Lord Eliot) had endea-
voured to state the facts of the case, and he should say
that there never was a more unfounded accusation than
that respecting the impanneling of the jury in the case
of Hughes. The Rielit Hon. Gentleman must be aware
that in the county of Armagh the majority of the inhabi
tants were Protestants, and the Sheriff took the names
of the jury from a book without consideration as to their
creed. The Government could have nothing what-
ever to do with it. The next cases to which he
would call the attention of the Rouge' were those
.
of the prosecution of certain newspaper. fur libel. The
Right Hon. Gentleman was aware that the Newry
Examiner pleaded guilty.' He would first say a few
words
,as to the cirumstatices under which those prose- .
cutions took place. He thought he '..should be-tible to
show to the -Right,Hon. Gentleman that those libels
were not mere attacks upon the Government, but they
attacked its. administration of jastice in Ireland, and
made direct assertions that jl4stict had been tampered
with. The .Noble Lord-then reed-the libel, which stated
that Francis Hughes had been tried for the murder of
Mr. Powell three times, and was at length convicted.
It was not their province to pronounce as to whether the
man was guilty or not, but what they complained of
was, that he had not had an impartial trial. He had
been tried as an Irish Catholic, and it' they (the
Catholics) submitted to such tyranny they deserved to
suffer for ever, &e. The jury, the Right lion. Gentle-
man would not dispute, were most respectable, and they
were of an unanimous opinion that .that was a,
malicious libel. He believed that if any gentleman con.
nected with Dublin were to refer to the names
which composed that jury, he would find tha.t•they were
men of the highest respectability ; and those gentlemen
believed that the of of the libel was to bring into
contempt the administration of justice in Ireland. He
would refer the Rie,ll% Hon. Gentleman to a alai which
had taken place in ()kennel lately, the jury on which
were composed of eight Catholics and four Protestants.
He would then refer to the case of Mr. Biddulph, to
which he did not attach any very great weight. He did
not think it was the duty of the law officers' to state to
the Government any acts of misconduct on the part of
Magistrates. He believed the Right Hon. Gentleman
had stated 'the facts correctly, but he believed that
the recommendation made by Mr. Biddulph was
made in order to relieve his sister, who was
one of the principal witnesses in the case. He did
not state that in justification of Mr. Biddulph.
Mr. Biddulph's mune had, however, been removed from
the commission, but Mr. Biddulph was a Whig. He next
came to the case of Mr. St. George. Mr. St. George

was a man of high standing, and universally beloved. In
a moment of irritation, however, he did address- a letter
to the Lord Lieutenant. which ended in his removal
from the Magistracy: When the present Government
it :applieation Wet! mede to the Gkoe.
.0 eeifeitafe ,M St. Geoee^e. The Chancellor
eonzeivcd that an apology or2etraetation cif the letter were
necessary. - Mr. St. George stated that he bed not the
slightest intention Of exhibiting any disrespect, to her
Majesty when he.expressed a disapproval of the conduct
of the Lord Lieutenant. When five years had elapsed
and the Government which then ruled heel been re-
moved, he (Lord Eliot) did think that his Eight Hon.
Friend would have exhibited some little degree of perti-
nacity if he bud not consented to reinstate Mr. St.
George. His Right Hon. Friend did refuse to listen to
the requests to reinstate the gentleman for a con-
siderable time, nor did he at length consent
until he had receiVed an assurance from the Lord
Lieetenant. Of Ireland, that he should have been satisfied
with the explanation offered by Mr. St. George. Those
were the simple facts Connected with the matter. He
heed 40"' briefly gone over the whole of the circums
steams referred to by the Rig.ht Hon. Gentleman, and
he trusted that the explanation %Odell he had offered
would be satisfactory to that House, and to the Irish
people.—(llear, hear.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE \yes of opinion that there
were nem v evils in the judicial urrangements of Ireland.
He recolli;eted one circumstance which appeared to him
togu a gr''dt wog towards the subversiOn of the high
character of their judieial arrangements. It wa.s, that
two dodges of a very high character, notwithstanding
their very advanced . age, refused to resign until the time
should come when two of their own political opinions
could be nominated. His Right Hon. .Friend had re-
ferred tea vateety :of other appointments; he (Sir W.
Somerville) should not follow him in this course, but his
Right. Honourable Friend had stated that every one
was marked
- with' a strong party feeling.
passed -on 'to what appeared -to him to 'He
he the
praimonee of the charge- against the judicial proceedings,
;Ind that was the charge of partially challenging the juries.
The Noble Lord denied The statement, and alluded with
great saisfaction to the verdict in Tipperary, where the
jury was composed of equal numbers of Roman Catho-
ties and Protestants. IT the verdicts of that jury were
so satisfactory, why not adhere to the course of com-
wisat; their 'juries of equal numbers of Protestants and
Catindieseee(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however,
did not refer to the charge of the Judge upon that occa-
sion, whichwas_atated to-have been most partial. Was
i 41104 monstrout- thing that an article, which appeared
in the...llforning-Chrontcle, dared -not be copied into the
.Dubliwpapers for fear of the Attorney-General ? The
liberty of the Press in Ireland ought to equal to that
which was allowed to the Press in lingland.—(Hear.).
It was :ten:fuer of satisfaction to him (Sir W.Sornerville)
to have hoard these subjects explained by the Noble
Lord in 'the manner they had been, and in future he
hoped there wotild be cause neither for complaint nor
explanation. He did believe that every one of the recent
Government appointments had been founded upon the
political opinions of the parties. The Noble Lord said,
" Would you have us appoint our enemies ?" Certainly
not. But he did say, that the only test of fitness ought
not to be partisanship, in appointments which required
men of vigour, of intellect, or of talent. If the Noble
Lord did not appoint men upon a real test of qualifica-
aim, he would in no way differ from former Govern-
ments, who had based their official appointments upon
the political feeling or the political influence of the can-
didates. He hoped the Noble Lord would act in an in-
dependent and straightforward manner, and not adopt a
course which would render forbearance impossible.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said, as his Noble Friend
had gone over all the points of this question, he would
not trouble the House by travelling over the same
ground. He was glad that the Right Hon. Gentleman
had brought forward this subject. But why was
not the Right Hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of
Dublin in his place for the purpose of supporting the
allegations ? Because he knew that it was impossible'
to support them. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) had never
known a case in which a juror had been set aside until the trial
of Sir J. Binghatn at Cork, for endeavouring, in the execution
of his duty as one of her Majesty's officers, to suppress tithe
riots. On that om-asion the Right Hon. Gentleman the Lord
Mayor of Dublin, as the Leading Counsel for the prosecution,
challenged and put by co less than 60 Protestants. Mr. Justice
Moore observed, upon that occasion, that he never witnessed so
extraordinary a proceeding. Mr. Bennett, the counsel for the
defence, also remarked upen its impropriety. What was the
result? The General was convicted. The Judge declared
that the age of chivalry was gone when an honest man was con-
victed of such a crime. 7 here was another case, in which the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shad) was leading counsel for
the pro <pent ion.
Mr. SHIEL —Yes, Pierce's case ; six Roman Catholics and
six Protestants.;-( Hear. hear. )
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON—Put in that case twenty-nine
Protestants were challenged, and put by for their religion.—
( Hear, hear.) In the case which had been referred to at such
length by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he ventured to say that
not a single person was put by on account of his religicn. He
denied the charge, it was not founded in truth ; but those who
were found making such a charge ought not themselves to have
been guilty of similar conduct.—( Hear, hear.) He could not
but regret that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville)
whose speeches were generally characterised by so' naue.h pro-
priety, had lost the weight of his authority in charges of that cha-
racter. He alluded particularly to the Right Honourable
Gentleman's attacks upon Mr. Justice Johnson,
against Whose character he had never heard the.
slightest imputation. He must say that, on the whole, he
never heard a weaker case than that which had been brought
forward by the Right Hon. Gentleman. With respect to
_

would not have left the matter to the operation of chance, but
would have taken care that the parties should have had a fair
trial. The language of the Chief Justice in addressing the
Jury, was not such as Chief Justices in this country
were in ills 'habit of using. (aid not think
that an English Jst4ge would use tl words
"Infamous libel summing up the case to a jury.
That was, however, the language of the Irish judge—language
which would create a suspicion that he might have been ac-
tuated by the passions of the partisan instead of the impartiality
which became his station. The course taken against the pro-
prietor of the Newry Examiner had been unparalleled in this
country since the Duke of Wellington's Administration; and
such a course was only calculated to bring the administration
of justice into discredit. He had ne hesitation in saying that
the man who had been found guilty of the libel was a public
benefactor, inasmuch as he had called the attention of the em-
pire to the manner in which justice was occasionally adminis-
tered in Ireland. He believed that. the Irish Government had
done itself no honour by the prosecution in question, and that
the course it had taken in these matters could only tend to
perpetuate the suspicion which unhappily prevailed in Ireland,
that equal justice was not administered to all parties.
Sir J. GRAHAM would venture to address a few words to
the House on the present subject. He was perfectly assured
that-. his Noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government was
convinced that. his first duty was to sce that the law should be
impartially admini:tered in Ireland. He found that no charge
had been substantiated against any of the Law Officers of the
Crown in that country,. The first of those Law Officers was a
man distinguished by his leg.sl ability and undoubted honour.
With respect to Mr. Lefroy, his private character was equally
high. It was true that he had taken an active part in politics
some fourteen years ago ; but he should remind the House that
political partisanship had never been considered as a disquali-
iicatirin for a seat on the Bench by either of the political
parties in the House. The late Government had raised to the
Bench such ardent politicians as Mr. Justice O'Loghlin,
Mr. Justice Perrin, and Baron Wolfe, all of whom
might be said to owe their elevation to their
connexion with Tarty politics.—( Hear, hear.) It was
complained that members of the Lord Lieutenant's house-
hold had taken part in canvassing at the public elections,
but he would remind the House that appointments in the
Royal household here had never been considered as disquali-
lying their holders from interfering in election proceedings
in this country; and it would be affectation to attempt to
deny that such had been the case. It was stated that the
Crown had stretched its powers in challenging jurors ; but the
same right was exercised by. prisoners; and while that was tire
case, unless the Crown exercised a corresponding right, they
would merely he leaving an impunity for crime under the pre-
tence of fairly administering justice. He contended that
the right to challenge had been discreetly exercised
by the present Crown lawyers in Ireland. He said
it on the authority of the present Lord Chancellor
of Ireland—a man whose character no one could impeach,
and whose word every man would implicitly believe—he
said it on the authority of that Right Hon. personage that
all the Roman Catholics set aside, had been set aside in
conformity with the established rules in such cases. The
Lord Chancellor had had some doubts with respect to the
caie of Macdonald; but he had satisfied himself, in a minute
investigation, that that juror had also been properly set aside.
So satisfied was the Lord Chancellor of the fairness of the
trial, -that though an English lawyer, and one of the highest
ernint nce, he was convinced that justice should be put in
execution, and that the law should take its course against
the prisoner who had been found guilty. He now turned
to the prosecution of Doodall ; he pleaded guilty, and there
was no trial. With respect; to Duffy who was tried, it was for
disturbing existing order in Ireland, and even for preventing
the course of justice. Every one who read the article must
allow that the language was such as in a country like Ire-
land could not be tolerated. The Hon. Gentleman had allowed
that there were many expressions that could not be defended.
Mr. C. BULLER—I spoke of its temper, not its truth.
Sir J. GRAHAM—He would attempt to dispose of that
too. He concluded that the sting of the whole libel was its
falsehood. It was .a Special Jury fairly selected, and it was
found that it was a malicious libel, and the Govern-
ment was bound to follow up that decision. He had
not read all the attacks on the Irish Government in the Irish
newspapers, but he believed they were not much more mode-
rate than in former days ; still it. was neither the wish, the
desire, nor the intention of the Government, to resent those;
but the libel in this case was an attack on the Trial by Jury,
which the Government was bound to defend.

tlfl- ItO

Sergeant Warren, who was there in Ireland that did not admire
hs character, public, private, and professional? and with re-
spect to the appointment of the Chief Justice, he must say there
never wa, a better appointment, no man who was acquainted
with Ireland but must. admit the truth of that statement.

As to the appointMent of Mr. Banns Lefroy, he must say it was
the business of Government to seek out among the bar a
gentleman for the office of a Judge of. the Court of Exchequer,
who was conversant with that branch of law study most re-
quired for that Court, namely—equity ; and who, he would ask,
was so competent, from his high moral character, and
fiom his knowledge of equity, to be called to that
high station as Baton Lefroy ? and then this very gen-
tleman who had b.en spoken of as unfit to fill the office of
Judge, had been offered promotion as
as was well known, under
several Administrations, which he
With respect to
the charge of Chief. Justice Pennefather to the Jury on the
trial of Mr. Duffey, the editor of the Belfast Vindicator,
for libel, and the words attributed in the report of that charge
to the Chief Justice, namely--" that was not mincing the
matter," he must say that the reporter must have been mis-
taken, and that if they did appear in the Dublin Evening Mail
they were copied out of the other papers. He would not de-
tain the House by any further observations.

After a few observations from-Sir W. SO3IERSILLE and Mr,
SIIIEL' in explanation,
Mr, M. .1. O'CONNELL said that the main object of those
with wham he thought on polities was to obtain for Ireland
that strict and impartial administration of justice in the trial
by jury which prevailed in England. With respect to the
murder of M'Ardle, he did not blame the Government for the
course they pursued with respect to juries ; but what he com-
plained of was, that the opinion of the people should be allowed
to remain, which was, that the object in setting aside jurors
was vengeance, and not] justice.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.)
The question was, whether a man who had suffered the
extreme penalty of the law had received a fair trial,
He believed he had not. Was that the only case in which the
Government had dealt unjustly ? It was not ; they had prose-
cuted an individual, connected with the Press in Ireland, because
he had stated that there was one law in Ireland for the Protes-

Lord PALMERSTON did every justice to the good inten-
tions of the Secretary for Ireland, and no one would believe
that he imputed want of good intention either to him or the
Lord Lieutenant ; but it was evident they had to
administer the Government under the difficulty that
had always been predicted ; they were ,obliged to
govern the majority according to the will of a minority,
clistrusting the bulk of tha people, and in return distrusted by
them. Acting on their own political opinions, they chose
their legal officers ftom persons agreeing with them, and had
they confined tt.eir appointments to such persons as Mr.
Wolfe, Mr. Perrin, and Mr. Ball, men as unobjectionable to
their political opponents as these, no reasonable fault could
be found with them. But whatever might he the legal attain-
ments of Mr. O`Loghlin. he could not but think that his ap-
rointment was an unfortunate one.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought that the appointment of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman opposite (Sergeant Jackson) was an un-
fort una.e one also, though no one commanded or
deserved more respect in private life. With respect to the com-
position of juries, and the necessity of exclui4ing Catholics when
a Catholic was to be tried, yet there were occasions when those
rules might be set aside with advantage. The present debate
could not but be useful in inducing the people to think that.
there was at least a desire to enforce the administration of the
law with justice, and that the juries should be composed with I
fairness, so that the Catholic population should be sa-
ti:fied that they were treated with fairness. Any one
who had long sat in that House must be gratified with
the different tone that had prevailed during this debate
compare.' with that of the debates on Irish quosticna, which
used formerly to take place. This was evident on both aides I
of the House, and he drew from it an inference that both Lord
Vortescue and Lord INormanby had, by their administration,
done much to produce this desirable change in political feeling
in that country. With regard to the papers for which his
lion. Friend had moved, they did not appear to be refused, as ,
they seemed to be rendered necessary by the very language of
the Noble Lord himself. What was desirable should be ex-
plained
was the grounds of the reversal of the (eeision in the
ease of Mr. St. George, and for this teason he hoped the papers I
would be Produced. 1

Mr. GitEGORY and Sir R. Peel rose together, and the
latter giving way, Mr. Gregory proceeded to address the House.
lie denied that he had ever made a solemn declaration against
the sys:em of national education in Ireland. He same into the
House entirely unshackled and unbiassed. But as education
had been mentioned as the principal item of the charge against
him, he might say that it would be no recommendation to the
thivernment candidate for Dublin that the Established Church
should have been so undeservedly taunted as it had
been the other .night by the noble Lord the Secretary
for Ireland. The petition that had been presented
against his return, on the grounds of intimidation, had been
abandt.neci ; and he contended that, of all elections for Dublin,
this had been the one at which the least undue and unconsti-
tional influences had prevailed. So far from Lord De Grey
having interfered, they had heard that his officers did not exert
themselves, and that Lord De Grey had been so cautious, that
he ordered his officers not to show themselves in the streets,
hat they should be compromised.
Lord ELIOT explained. He denied that he had spoken
tauntingly or disrespectfully of the Established Church, the
other night. On the contrary, he had said that he believed
the objections entertained by many members of that Church, to
the present system of education in Ireland, were conscientious
objections.

taut and another for the Catholic.—Theebarge of the ',carried
Judge in that case was subversive of alljustice.—( Hear, hear.)
The Judges in Ireland laid down law from the Bench that

would not be tolerated in this country. If the law, as laid
down by Chief Justice Pennefather, was to be taken as sound,
Fox and Erskine had laboured for the freedom of the Press in

vain.—( Hear, hear.) It was not of the legislative measures
that he complained, hut of the manner in which they were car-
ried into effect by the Executive in Ireland.—( Hear, hear. )
A great deal had been said about open questions ; he wished to
ask whether there were not open questions in the present Ca-
binet, by which important questions were put down? He trusted
that the debate would have the moral effect of showing the
people of England that they had been forced into a discussion
on this question. Ireland had been deprived in a great mea-
sure of the trial by jury and freedom of the Press. He trusted
in future both countt ies would be governed by wise and impar-
tial laws.

i%lr. GREGORY had only read an account of those obser-
vations, and in that account the word conscientious bad been
omitted.

Sir ROBERT PEEL hardly expected that the Right Hon.
Gentleman would press his motion to a division. The speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman was a denunciation of the Irish
Goverutnent in the administration of justice in that country,
and an imputation upon their conduct in respect to the ehalleng•
ing of jur.es; and the motion by which that speech was followed,
was a motion for a correspondence which had taken place with
Mr. St. George relative to the restoration of that gentleman
to the Magistracy.—( Cheers.) Now at an. early period of the
session, the Right Ihn: Gentleman, the Lord Mayor• of
Dublin, had presented a petition on the subject of the trial of
Hughes, and had also given notice of a motion on the same
subject. That Right Hon. Gentleman had since withdrawn
his motion, and had returned to Ireland, and now the
Right Honourable Member for Dungarvon, after making
that case one of the main topics of his speech,
made no motion at all on that case, but asked for a cor-
respondence on a matter of totally a different nature.—
(Cheers.) He (Sir R. Peel) had the honour of the per-
sonal acquaintance of Mr. St. George—he hail known him
for many years, and a more honourable and truly respect-
able man than Mr. St. Geoge*did not exist.—(Cheers.) lie
was proud to call Mr. St. George his friend, but still he
I considered he was not warranted in writing the letter which
he had written to the Marquis of Normanby, the representative
of her Majesty in Ireland, and he (Sir R. Peel) thought that
the writing of that letter justified the removal of Air. St.
George from the Magistracy.—(Cheers.) At the acceision-of
the present Ministry to power, no step had been taken for the
restoration of Mr. St. George, but a memorial from the Magis-
trates of Galway, praying his res:oration, having been presented
to the. Government by the Marquis of Clanricarde, the Lord
Lieutenant of the county, and the personal friend of Lord
Normanby, the Lord Chancellor even took no step, but asked
Mr. St. George for some explanation in apology, relative to the
letter which he had written. Mr. St. George hesitated as to '
the precise terms ; at last an explanation was offered which the
Lord Chancellor submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, which ex-
planation was accompanied by a disclaimer of meaning any
offence to her Majesty. The Lord Chancellor asked the Lord
Lieutenant whether if it were his (the Lord Lieutenant's case)
he should be satisfied; the Lord Lieutenant replied that
he should, and Mr. St. George had been restored. He
could not conceive any public object that could
be gained by the production of the correspondence, and he
hardly expected the Right Hon. Gentleman would ask his
friends to concur in his motion.—(Cheers.) He concurred
with the Noble Lord in opinion that in Ireland, of/all eountries
in the world, it was not sufficient alone that justice should be
purely administered, but there must be a confidence on the
part of the public that it. was purely administered—( Cheers)—
and when the Noble Lord described this debate as exhibiting an
abatement, of animosity and acerbity of feeling, he thought that
proved that his two Noble Friends, the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland and the Secretary, had not failed in the object of their
public labours.—(Cheers.) He had been taunted, in 1839,
with the
.impossibility of making satisfactory appointments in
the Government of Ireland. He had been properly told that
not his expressions but his appointments would be locked to,
and to those he appealed. There was his Noble Friend, the
Lord Lieutenant, who would not have undertaken that
office without determining to judge for himself. He
would no submit to be dictated to by his inferior
agents. No man had made greater sacrifices than
his Noble Friend had done in the performance of his public
duty, and lie would not retain it one hour unless he was at

Lord JOCELYN said he had listened to the whole debate
with some interest, and he expected that the Right lion.
Gentleman would find out something in the administration of
the Irish Government which his fertile imagination would
magnify into crimes. But he would not have risen on this
occasion were it not for the allu‘ion which was made to the
part he took in the late Dublin election. He confessed he did
interfere in that election, and used the influence of a noble
relative in favour of his Hon, Friend who sat near him, and
he told the electors that if they voted it would be agreeable to
the Irish Government. But lie did not use any official in-
fluence, or hold out any inducement to a single elector to vote
for his Hon. Friend. His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant
rid not even know that he canvassed any person, so that what-
ever r...sponsibility there was in his so acting, it rested on his
own shoulders. '1 he Noble Lord then referred to the conduct
but
tthhie n
of the late Government, and read documents to show that they
e did so himself
yman of Dublin, and that
it thi teer
Rightf er ed
flog.
i nformearneclecLticoanrsnterdir, theGeCh
tilt
in 1831.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. C. BULLER said the Noble Lnrd admitted he used his
personal influence, and the influence of a noble relative of his,
g to say to the pri•
was known to that
i‘r,
at
tteh
cehl
aart
ae
elt)eut bol
ti nt
heilaetc
House, and publicly, as the Grandmaster of the Orangemen
of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord referred to
the cenduct of Government at , former elections, and it was
curious that the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) was Se-
cretary for Ireland during a pinion of the time to which the
Noble Lord referred.—( Laughter.)
nobleti n r
e He
ae t i hadea,d
He thought the Noble
Lords opposite ought to settle these things between them, and
that the differences between the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
(Mr. Sergeant Jackson) and the Noble Lord (Eliot), ought to
be made up before they came into f-1 that
--ouse.—( Laughter. )
The Honourable Gentleman then went into a statement
of tha facts connected with the trials of 1114Ardle and
Hughes, and said that the perversion of the forms of
justice, exhibited at those trials, must. inspire every
man with deep alarm for the. impartial, administration of
jestice.—( Hear, hear.) He did not blame the Noble Lord
( Lord Eliot), for whom he had the highest respect, and to
whom he gave credit for the best intentions, which were frus-
trated by the odious . instruments used by the Government of
Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) lie would not say anything of Mr.
Baron Lefroy, who, he was sure, was deserving of the highest
f c3pee. , or of the . other law appointments in Ireland. What
lie felt. most deeply concerned for was the tral of Mr. Duffy
and the charge of the Lord Chief Justice. in
the article
which was the subject of prosecution, there were some ex-
'
prt ss.ons ; which he slid not mean to
,justify,
justify, but the whole tone
if it, as compared with what would be found in an English
newspaper under the circumstances, temperate, Was and he
believed the real sting which it contained was not in the few
expielsions to which he alluded, but was to be found in the
ger eral fairness and truthfulness of the charge._( Hear, hear.)
The writer of the article had complained of the system of hack-
it to exhibit the justice of the •
it g jui ies, and, es if accusation,
le wee himself tried by a jury which he believed to be
I
pac!ted.— (Hear, hear,
hear.) 1 he Honourable and
Leamed Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Ireland
• had
lead a statement matte by Mr. Kemmts, that the compo-
sition cf the jury in that case was owing to chance. He (Mr.
B.) thought that if the Hon and Learned Gentleman had
studi.: d the doctrine of Monsieur Laplace he would modify his
belief.—( A laugh.) The doctrine of chances would teach him
how unlikely it was that eight out of nine Catholics should be
set aside on that occasion—(Laughter)—when so few
were se aside altogether.—(Hear, hear.) If chance could
have led to these results, any prudent administrator of the law

perfect liberty to act upon his own judgment.—( Cheers. )
'1 hen, regard to his Noble Friend the Chief Secretary,
could he have given a stronger indication of the spirit in which
he intended Ireland should be governed than he had given
in the appointment of his Noble Friend—( Cheers)—an ap-
pointment in which his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for the Home Department had completely concurred ?
( Cheers.) Then w ith regard to the appointment of the Lord
Chancellor; that appointment had met with the approbation of
all parties in 183 h, and in 1841 that appointment had been
again made. Then with regard to his other judicial appoint-
ments, he denied that Hon. Gentlemen opposite had any right
to taunt him with having departed from any engagements he had
publicly entered into. They could not have been so simple as to
imagine he would make all his appointment s from among his politi.
cal opponents, and he denied that he had broken any engagement
he had entered into. The first vacancy that had occurred was
in the office of Lord Chief Justice, and to that office he had

appointed Mr. Pennefather, who had unwillingly, from a strong
sense of public duty, only accepted the office of Solicitor-
General- Now, that was an appointment made from no politi-
cal or Parliamentary influence, but simply to give to profes:innal
eminence its due reward. He really would advise the House not to
trust too minutely to the report of the charge alleged to have been
delivered. What a different construction did the phrase '6 no
mincing the matter " bear, after they had heard the explana-
tion of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General for
Ireland?—( Hear.) But then it was the appointment of Mr.
Lefroy. At no period had the Bench ever boasted a higher
equity lawyer than Mr. Lefroy. No gentleman had ever ex-

---.—,.......,..........,...............m....1M,......•••••....w......a,
hibited less acerbity in that House than Mr. Lefroy had done. ASSIZE INT ~
'E'.
Lord Wellesley had offered him a seat upon the bench, and that ELLIGEN 'C
was the third judicial appointment that Mr.Lefroy had refused. ,
Bet then he Isel opposed Cetholie E,rancipatier, in 182• ~.
Coeld there be gregter intolerence than to inal,e that the ground Ctrybl,Li,____:—/.: h.efore Lead AI-az:GEO and a Special Jury. )
BIDET, (21-Maidstone, 7'. —Ma idstone. July 18.
Fi,,iir).:7,o7pi'zitirtilbrel.'Ul:cri keislrßlTo2:.natl,,,,..tz
rth. e
Sametrelo, of tLe
he
jacelbe C,,,. of:m ..
~ 1 0 a. very considerable. emcen!. in the garish of
?T'ente:rd'elnaliselias Involved, some interest seas excited in the caret.
-I of ar7iving hire ne t'oat. reeard for professiond eminence to
. h, es came down :pedal's, for the plaintiffs in Letli
which he was fairiy:ett titled ; and for the Nob'e Lord who had
aL;ort's, sset erjeant Chennell and kr. Bramwell; Mr. The-
been a party to offering the Cie ief Earonship of the Eershequer e;.• . ~-,
to the strenuous advocate of the repeal of the Union—to a
gentleman who hail alWays taken the vehement part in polities
which Mr. O'Connell always had taken, forthe Noble Lord mg ,r and Mr. Platt appeared for the defendants.
upon argument the Judees
to Irish his indignation on them for the appointment The question involved in these proceedings has been before
of Mr. Lefroy to a puisne judgeship in the same Court, was tried on two occasions, and a special ease was directed to he
sent Op to the superior Court, but u
: were of opinion that the facto had not been sufficiently srme
some such instance of assurance—he believed that was a
strictly Parliamentary phrase—(A laughl—as that which had
enabled the Noble Lord, with a grave countenance, to contra- ante before the Jury, and a new issue was directed, whichhnow
tulate the present Government on the position which his policy came on for trial.
had secured to them in Affghanistan.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Jury having been sworn, Mr. Bramwell was about to
Is. was curious to observe in what different lights the characters I opus the pleadings, when he was interrupted by an intimation
of men were viewed on different oecasions. When a rumour I teat the cause would probably be arranged without further
was circulated that tbe Government was about so send over an litigation.
parties.
Englishman as Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the party oppo- :en. T. Wilde and Sergeant Channel' then left the Cottle,
site wdre loud in the praises of Mr. Lefroy.—( Cheers.) They and were absent for some time, and when they returned a eon-
had no objection to see him placed in an office which gave him versation took Islam between the Counsel for the respective
w Sir T. Wrenn then addressed the Court, and stated that he
the appointment of the whole of the Magistracy Of Ireland then, -
,°ffianetel :.
..aei happy to inform his Lordship and the Jury that, after soiue
bbeuctanuossevhehevolaisi
ancroatinstot
chaethaolisipcoiEnifnedanecoipaatniyoujubdiilcBia2lc,
ja,:rl,:Tisrhicli Isis Lordship and the Jury would be spared
had supported the Government. He would leave the House to i
ed:sucne;sion, they hal come to an amicable arrangement of these
say what foundation there was for any charge against the Govern- 1 .
ers.•
ment as regarded the appointment, and he would ask the 1
~ 'erred investigation. lt was an arrangement which
llonse what would have been thought of the Government if i t I 11,".1
91 la, O.
raids !I' ' I
that iU 'c I he beneficial to all parties concerned, for lee
jo,'sant then hanZid ha7a
wi,i tio the officer of the Court the terms of the
had been so shabby as not to have appointed a gentleman so ! %,
thfetioies,., turd she prbozne(elxinhgasues•toAtinuTeihl,etlh-ecarfeneedsiis.,nprls.i.
det!ending upon this
well quclified as Mr. Lefroy to the vacant judgeship, on the
sole ground that twelve years since he had voted against the i
ail:a:7:07:
r:r
Aaiun
~
~. by a consolidation rule, f honk' not be further •
Catholic claims, and had been a supporter of the Government. 1
rina..stinclia.shmilAwas understood to be, that a certain au-
-(Cheers.) With respect to the appointment as Solicitor- , . ' . e
_paid to the rector in lieu of tithe;. and
General of his Hon. and Learned Friend Mr. Sergeant Jack- 1
1 b, en stayed' ulquestion, which had
rs.vse..oanstitr expressed himself gratified to hear that the
pro•
son, he thought no man, looking to the high professional and
t'acr;lll7i.i'%l:::l;:eim.e to an amicable and • satisfactory arrang,ement
moral character of that gentleman, could a ith any justice object
to such an appointment. With regard to the appointment i
to office generallv, the principle he gad laid down for his own P
retidanee, and that of the Government, was to give no prefe- of
btheir. respective interests, and therefore, the Jury was ordered
to ealisc larged by consent of both parties.
rence on account of the religious profession of any man—to look
for the person fittest to fill office, of course giving preference to 1 Mr. Justice Coltman finished the Criminal business about
men of his own party where they were found possessed of the elevelnside o'clock, and only one cause remained for trial on the
.requisite qualities. Of the justice of those principles he was
convinced, and according to them he would ever shape his
conduct.

Colonel VERNER defended the conduct of the law offieers
of the Crown in the case of Hughes 'l he Hon. Gentleman
went into the circumstances connected with the case at consi-
derable length, but was perfectly inaudible in the gallery, in
consequenne of the impatience and noise of the House.
The House then divided, when there aneared—
For the motion
Against the motion

-
POLICE IN TELLIGENCE.
illitA'SION HOUSE.
A xoung man, named Thomas Fisher, was brought before
the Lord Ma3-or, charged with having attempted to pluck vitt
the eyes of John Ogle.
The complainant and defendant nre rival newsvenders, of
that class who are in the habit of waiting in the neighbourhood
of rteam-vessels, and-thrusting newspapers in at the doors and
windows of ,omnibuies and other vehicles, with loud eulogium,
upon their contents. '1 he complainant had been trading in
this way for some,years in the vicinity of London-bridge, and
naturally met with severe competition proportioned to the in-
crease of the steamers' population. He experienced, however,
the most unfair opposition from the defendant, who not content
with being mare boisterous and eloquent in favour of his own
commodities, repeatedly challenged the older trader to fight fur
101, and thus decide the right which each claimed to the most.
lucrative business of London-bridge. The defendant finding
that his antagonist preferred the legitimate way of doing busi-
ness, sought various other means of provoking him, and tumbled
him and his newspapers in the kennel, but, in performing that
feat, got floored himself, and while on the ground endeavoured
to gouge or pluck out the eye of Mr. Ogle.
Mr. Fisher declared that Mr. Ogle had shown a very paltry
spirit of rerenge unsuited to the character of an honousable
vender of intelligence, and, instead of arguing upon the point
of disagreement, gave him such a dab on the side of the head
with half a hundred weight of information, that he lay mo-
tionless for some time. When he came to himself be certainly
laid hold of his assailant, and, in endeavouring to prevent Mr.
Ogle from biting off and swallowing his finger, happened to
slip his thumb into the eye of that gentleman.
A policeman described the corduct of Mr. Fisher as that of
a most savage and untutored ruffian.
Mr. Fisher was held to bail far the unmanly assault.
John Mahony, a paviour, was brought up, charged with
having gone to sleep drunk in the street.
'1 he policeman who introduced him to the Lord Mayor,
found him without hat, coat, waistcoat, or shoes, snoring so
loudly or. Sunday night as to wake some of the sober inhabit-
riots. On being carried to the station-house the man repeated
the offence in such a manner that it, was supposed he must be
one of the long since paid-off wlttchmen ; but, upon recover-
ing, he was recognised as a laboUrer is the neighbourhood or
the Mansion-house.
The Loan Mavoa— Why, Mr. Mahony, this was very bad
work to be at. particularly on Sunday. Defendant—Please
your Honour, I never drank a drop on Sunday.
The LORD Maros—Wh).• you will not tell me you were
sober whet' the cfficer took you into custody ? Defendant—
Upon my yowl I'll do no such thing, but, ycur Honour, thst
was the remains of the alight before. They won't give us any-
thing to think on Sunday until it is too late.
The Loan MAvon—So you got drunk enough on Saturday
night to serve you til! Monday morning? Defendant—My
Lord, I never was here afore, and I am sure that's what very
few of my country men can say, God knows !
The Loan MAYOR—Have you got a family, Mr. Mahony ?
Defendant- Oh, then, by my yowl, it's I that has a wife and
four as fine babbies as ever you seen.
The LORD MAYOR—AniI you leave them to get into a
heastly state of intoxication ! How old is the youngest ?
Defendant—Sixteen years ould, the Lord be merciful to him.
The LORD MAYOR—WeIt; will you promise me not to get
into such a condition again ? Defendant—You shall never see
me again, your Honour, if I can help it.
The Loan Mayox—l shall discharge you now, as lam
told you are a hard-working, honest fellow ; but if 1 catch you
in such a state again, I must have security that you will take
Father Mathew's pledge before I let you go.
The defendant invoked a blessing upon his Lordship's head,
and retired.

Majority against the motion ..... —7l
Sir R. PEEL then moved that the Speaker should leave
the Chair.

Mr. BROTHERTON would oppose the motion, unless the
Right lion. Baronet proposed that the House should resolve
itself into a Committee of 'Supply merely pro forma. He
thought they should not proceed to pass any votes at all at
that late hour.
Sir R. PEEL said that he only proposed to take the Militia
Estimates in Committee of Supply.
Mr. HUME said, that at that late hour (a quarter to one),
he did not think they should proceed to the consideration of
any votes of supply. He should, therefore, move the adjourn-
ment of the House.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, the motion of adjournment having been withdrawn,
on the understanding that only one vote should be taken in the
Committee of Supply.

sf [UPS FOR NEW ZEALAND, under Charter
v---7 to the NEW ZEALAND COMPANY, to sail as nu-
de' :r Jontioned. viz.:—
FOR NELSON AND WELLINGTON.
"I I, LOMAS SPA RKES, A 1, 497 Tons, from London, July 25.
"11( WRAY, ./E 1, 316 Tons, from London, August 1.
P RINCE OF WALES, A 1, 516 Tons, from London, Sep-
tember 1.
FOR WELLINGTON AND NEW PLYMOUTH.
ESSEX, A 1, 300 Tons, from Plymouth, September.
For further particulars, apply at the New Zealand House,
.Broad-street Buildings.

_FOR AUSTRALIND, WESTERN AUS-
TRALIA, under Charter to. the WESTERN AUS-
TRALIAN COMPANY. to Sail on the 30th July, 1842, for I
their Settlement of AUSTRALIND, the fine fast-sailing
TRUSTY, Al, Burden 500 tons, JOHN ELSDON,
Commander, now lying in the London Docks.
This Ship has superior accommodation for Cabin and Steer-
age Passengers ; and parties purchasing land from the Coui-
Tany will be entitled to peculiar advantages in obtaining Vaeir
-Passage to the Colony by this vessel.
Fur particulars, apply at the Company's Office, Ne. P;3, Old
Broad-street; or as to Passage only, to Filby and CA., 157
Fe °church-street.
By order of the Board,
"Western Australian Company's Office,
33, Old Broad-street, June 17, 1842.

C. H. SMT4TH, Sec.