The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-08 00:00:00

THE MURDER OF M'ARDLE.

Mr. O'CONNELL begged to trouble the House with
an observation on a matter which was personal to him-
self. It had been attributed to him in public that in
some observations which he had made respecting the
Catholic clergy in Spain, he had said that he did
not complain of such of the clergy being prose-
cuted as were of Carlist politics. He had meant to
draw this distinction, that for any act done politically as
Carlists he had no sympathy with their sufferings. He
would now make one or two observations in reference to
the motion of which he had given notice, for a return of
the registered arms in the county of Down. That rather
arose out of the murder of a young man named M'Ardle;
one of the most cruel murders that was ever committed.
Mr. M'Ardle was an exceedingly fine youth, more than
six feet three inches in height, of excellent conduct, and
good temper. On Christmas evening he was at a pub-
lic-house, and a quarrel arose between a friend of his, of
the name of M'Keon, and an Orangeman, and to termi-
nate the quarrel he put his own friend out of the house.
There was a party of thirty or forty persons, who had
been out at a shooting-match during the day, and this
party were informed by Scott, the other party engaged
in the quarrel, of what had taken place. They resumed
their arms, and called out to be admitted ; on being re-
fused, they forced an entrance, and broke the windows,
doors, and furniture. M'Ardle escaped to another pub-
lic-house, at the distance of a mile and a half. There
he was pinioned, and dragged from an inner room
along the floor. He escaped a mile further ; he was
pursued ; they found him lying by a lime-kiln, dragged
him along the road, and one of them shot him dead.
He did not wish to throw blame upon any party ; but
there was a shout in Court—the usual Orange cry—
when this party were acquitted. The Jury who, with-
out hesitation, acquitted the men on the charge of mur-
der, found them guilty of a riot—a pretty good proof
that it was an anomalous verdict. Another murder had
occurred since ; another young man had been shot by
a party of the same description immediately after the
murder to which he had alluded. What protection was
there if such practices were to be allowed ? What he
complained of was, that the Magistrates did not do
their utmost to suppress such meetings. The Magis-
i trates took uo step to repress what he (Mr. O'Connell)
conceived to be a flagrant violation of the law. They
allowed arms and ammunition to remain in the hands of
the individuals who had perpetrated this murder. Every
effort ought to have been made to punish those persons.
He would content himself with moving that a return
be laid before the House of the numbers, names, and de-
scription of the persons who had registered arms in the
county of Down.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Lord ELIOT said—He hoped he might be permitted
to make a few observations on the statement of the Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman. It was no light matter
to impugn the verdict of a jury,-particularly when the
life of a fellow-creatnre was at stake. He (Lord Eliot)
thought himself bound to say that looking to the evi-
dence, to the statement of the Attorney-General, and to
the charge of the Learned Judge at the trial, he was at
a loss to conceive on what ground the prisoners were ac-
quitted. He assured the Right Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, that his (Lord Eliot's) Noble Friend at the head
of the Irish Government had felt the deepest pain on
that occasion, not only with respect to the death of the
unfortunate man—melancholy as that occurrence was—
hut also as that occurrence indicated a continuance of
that spirit of party warfare and bigotry which
the Government had hoped was rapidly beginning
to subside.—(Hear, hear.) They also felt that
it tended to shake that confidence in the power of
the law to punish crime which it was so necessary should
prevail among all classes of the community. The Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had done injustice to the
Government. So anxious was his (Lord Eliot's) Noble
Friend that the ends of justice should not be frustrated,
that he had directed the principal law-officers of the
Crown to proceed to Down to conduct the prosecu-
tion; and he (Lord Eliot) believed that he was justified
in saing that that Learned Gentleman had on that
occasion displayed all the skill and knowledge which
were characteristic of him. He entirely agreed with
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman that such meet-
ings were very reprehensible. He was not sufficiently ac-
quainted with the law to know if such meetings were ille-
gal, but he agreed with the Right Hon. and Learned Gent.
that they ought not to be encouraged. With regard to
the cries uttered in Court, he did not know how they
could have been prevented. As soon as they were
uttered the Judge interfered, and commanded silence,
after which he (Lord Eliot) declared the cries had not
been repeated. He meant no disrespect either to the
religion professed by the Right Hon. Member, or to the
party to which he belonged, but he believed that what
had originated the disturbance which had terminated in
the murder of M'Ardle was a cry raised of " to hell
with King William." He (Lord Eliot) said this to show
that there were strong party feelings actuating both sides.
in
Butsaying Mr.
M'Ardle
ththat
tO'CONNELLhtandnnseizedry saidhad thattbheee n tmhr
aae
ise Nowdbhbl eoy
rtLordahiese
Catholics
matterand
etouonka
was,rm himetdh
unarmed,
ttuhtt
oh
ueogf the meeting. The worst tathsohefo clitre right.shye
theyi n that awt partoul
dremain
ef
m a Irelandiu
so,
rahvony weapons,
wgelmonegwhile the Catholics
n
were all armed with hhOe a
wer
he (Mr. O'Connell) could not say.
Lord ELIOT would take that opportunity of alluding
to another objection which had been made, which was,
that the Jury was composed entirely of Protestants. It
had been said that the law-officers of the Crown ought
to have objected to the composition of the Jury. He
(Lord Eliot) believed that the Jury had been impannelled
to try other cases, and the next of kin to the deceased
had made no such objection ; and what, he would ask,
would have been said in the south of Ireland, where the
great majority of the people were Catholics, if a Jury of
Catholics were objected to on the score of religion? He
felt that as the next of kin had made no objection to the
composition of the jury, the law-officers of the Crown
could not with propriety do so. In conclusion, the Noble
Lord observed that he would not object to the returns
being granted.
Mr. SHAW said, with regard to the Constitution of
the jury, he begged to observe, that the Counsel em-
ployed by the next of kin were gentlemen of Vae highest
standing at the Irish bar.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to say that he had not im-
peached the composition of the jury.
Lord ELIOT did not impute such a charge to the
Hon. Gentleman, but an accusation of that nature had
been made.
The SPEAKER said that as the return was unop-
posed, perhaps the Hon. Member would not press it as
an amendment, but would consent to his putting the
motion that he (the Speaker) do leave the Chair.
Mr. O'CONNELL would withdraw the amendment,
and bring it forward as a substantive motion.
EXCHEQUER-BILLS FRAUD.
In reply to a question put by Mr. BLEWETT,
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER stated
that the Exchequer-bills Fraud Bill would be read a