Star.
London, England, 1823-07-08 00:00:00

ADMINISTRATION OP JUSTICE IN IRELAND.

Mr. BROUGHAM rose to present a Petition from
a person named John Quip, who was a surgeon, re-
siding at Belfast in Ireland. He knew nothing of
the Petitioner, he had referred him (Mr. Brougham)
to an Hon. Member, not then in town, who was ac-
quainted with his respectability, and as it was un-
likely that the Gentleman to whom he had been thus
referred would again reach London before the pro-
rogation of Parliament, he felt that he could not resist
the fair claim made upon him to lay before the con-
sideration of the House a Petition' couched in re-
spectful language, and meriting, as much is ever Peti-
tion deserved, their serious attention. a I hive said,"
continued Mr. Brougham, that I knew nothing of
this Petitioner. I am equally ignorant of the truth
of his statements; and I say this to guard myself from
the possible suspicion of having made these chargei
with any feeling of personal disrespect towards the
distinguished individual whose conduct as a Judge
is here so strongly impeached. The Petitioner brought
an action against a person whose name I studiously
abstain from mentioning, for an assault, and the cause
was tried before Mr. Baron M'Clelland. There was
a verdict for the defendant with costs, which the Peti-
tioner being urtable to pay, was taken in execution, and
ultimately obliged to seek relief from his embarrass-
ments by taking the benefit of the Insolvent Act.—
This step, though it procured for him a temporary
relaxation of his difficulties, served only to plunge him
ultimately in still deeper misery. His hopes were
utterly blighted, and his professional character ruined
by the very means in whith he sought for the alle-
viation of his difficulties. The charge contained in
the Petition divided itself into two parts. The first
charge is against the Sheriff for packing a Jury, and
the second against the Judge for misdirection. An
application was made on the part of the defendant,
to have the cause made a Special Jury cause, and this
was refused ußon the ground, that the application
was, under the peculiar circumstances of the case,
made too late. To this decision no abjection is stated.
The Petitioner next complains that thyncommon panel
•fronewhich the Jury were taken was not the ordinary
'panel of the year, but of the year preceding. He
then says, that notwithstanding the cause was not to
be tried by a Special Jury, it was made a Special
Jury case by the returning officer four days before
the Assizes. This is indeed a novel practice; at least,
we are not yet acquainted with it in this country. How
a returning officer should appoint a Special Jury, and
still less how such an appointment should be enter-.
tained in the roper quarter, I own I am at a loss to
ascertain. However, the Special Jury was now
printed, and the cause set down as a Special Jury
cause ; and then, says the Petitioner, the Special Jury
was composed of the defendant's own particular
friends, all of them reputed, and the majority armed
Orangemen ; while he, the defendant, was a Clergy-
man of the' Established Church, and the plaintiff a
Roman Catholic. He adds that the Sheriff was re-
lated to the defendant, and that the Returning Officer
was Law-Agent to the Sheriff. The cause was now
a Special Jury cause, yet it was called on the first
thing in the morning on the first day of the Assizes—
a circumstance very unusual in England. It was
tried before Baron lkl,Clelland, the Judge who pre-
sided in the Crown Court, and not before-the Judge
of what the Petitioner termed the Record, but what
we call the Nisi Prius Court. This, too, was a prac-
tice certainly never resorted to in this country before
the gaol was delivered. An objection was then made
by the Petitioner's Counsel', that the Special Jury had
not been obtained properly, but it was overruled by
the Judge.—l have now stated, with as much eau-.
racy as I could, the substance of the first head of this
charge. I shall endeavour now to detail the' other
part of it with scrupulous exactness. The action was
for an assault, and it appears upon the Petitioner's
statement to have been a very aggravated . assault.
The Petitioner was sitting in the pit of the Theatre
at Armagh, withhis hat on during the performance.
of the Royal tune GOD save Me King. The de-
fendant came up to hint and-abused. him, or chid
him fur remaining covered oat of contempt to the
music. The Petitioner said that it was not from
contempt to the music he remained coveted ; and
several other persons who were near him also kept

on their bats, declaring at the same time they did
so not from any disregard to the tune which was then
playing. Upon this the defendant persisted in hisabusi ye
language, and swore, by the immortal GOD 1 that if
the Petitioner did not take off his hat he would knock
his head off. Then, when Patrick's Day, the na-
tional tone, was played, he again approached the Pe-
titioner, and stood over him with his hat on, to pro-
voke him, if possible, to imitate his own violence.—
Such was, according to the Petitioner's statement,
the ca,e proved at the trial. The defendant called
no witnesses ; and the charge atti ibuted to the Judge
is certainly as singular a speech as ever escaped from
the lips al a Judge. It is inserted in the Petition as the
words pf the Judge, placed actually in inverted com-
mis—, According,' says the Learned Baron, ' ac-
cording to the specific letter of the law, you should
decide against the defendant; notwithstanding, you
w ill find your verdict for him, in honour of our good
old Icing, who may justly be termed the father of his
people'—(Laughter). All this .the Petitioner states
he is ready to prove at the bar of this House, by cre-
dible testimony, and, therefore, he has a fair claim
upon our attention. lam afraid, however, we can-
not grant the request which he proceeds to make,
and with which he concludes his Petition. Having
already applied to the Court of
.Exchequer in Ireland
for a new trial, and his application having been re-
fused, he now prays for that which the House has
no power to grant—a new trial; but he solicits, too,
that which, it the House could grant such a trial, is
a very natural request—that such- trial should take
place at Westroinster—(4 laugh). Having stated
the nature and the substance of this Petition, I move,
Sir, that it may now be brought up."—The Petition
was then brought up.
Mr. Secretary CANNING regretted that a Petition
reflecting upon the character of a Judge should be
presented at this late period of the Session, when it
was utterly impossible to investigate its merit., and
when it was quite certain that during the recess it
would circulate widely. It was evident, from the
statement of the Hon. and LearnecrGentleman, that
mistakes of the grossest nature were contained in the
Petition. He had no objection, however, to receive the
Petition, but would not agree to its being printed.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that the Right flon. Gen-
tleman had just anticipated that which he was him-!
self prepared in the next stage of this proceeding to
have urged upon the House—the impropriety of
giving countenance to a Petition which rested its au-
thority upon the statement of one with whose cha-
racter he was utterly unacquainted, by printing it on
their votes.

Mr. GOULBURN begged to remind the House,
that an application had been made to' the Court to
set aside the trial referred to in the Petition, and that
application had been refused by all the Judges. So
that this was not the act of one Judge, since it re-
ceived the sanction of the whole Court. _

Mr. BROUGHAM, in explanation, said, that he
had already stated that fact, certainly with the view
of shewin* that Baron McClelland was not alone re-
sponsible in this case.—The Petition was orderid to
lie on the table.
EAST IfIDIA TRADE BILL.

Mr. WYNN moved the Order of the Day for the
third reading of the East India Trade Bill.
The Order having been read,
Mr. HUME said he could not suffer a Bill to pass,
which deprived the natives of India of the rights of
British subjects without entering his protest against
such a measure. _ _ _

Mr. FORBES agreed with the Hon. Member for
Aberdeen in his estimate of this unjust measure.
Mr. MONEY thought the Bill unjust and perni-
cious ; but he believed, at the same 'time, that the
Directors acted according to the.best of their judg-
ment, and in an anxiety to promote the best interests
of the people of India.
The Bill was then read a third time; and, after a
few words from Mr. Holm and Mr. Wiwi, passed.