The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-27 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY.

The adjourned debate on Ireland was resumed by Mr.
Hawes, who spoke in favour of the motion, as did the
O'Connor Don, Sir W. James, Mr. E. Buller, Mr. Las-
celles, Mr. GiOorne, and Sir T. Wilde.
The only m!mbers who replied to them were Lord C.
Hamilton and Mr. A. S. O'Brien.
Sir T. WILDE with much vehemence attacked every
part of the conduct of government and advocated the
legality of agitation, without which, he said, nothing was
ever to be obtained from government. With a view to
explain some statement of the hon. member with refer-
ence to the omission of names from the jury list,
Mr. SHAW made some remarks disproving that there
was improper conduct in this respect in the government
officers.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNEsnAy.

The report on the Birkenhead Improvement Bill was
brought up. Several other private bills were forwarded a
stage.

The County Coroners 13111 was read a second time.
There was considerable discussion on the Horse-racing
Penalties Suspension Bill, several members objecting to it
as partial in its nature, and Mr. BRIGHT, moving an
amendment to extend the provisions of the bill to all pro-
ceedings of common informers under the authority of any
penal statute. The amendment was afterwards withdrawn,
and the bill passed through committee; a clause being
added which would extend the protection granted to bets
made on or before the Ist of June next.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND in resuming
the adjourned debate on Ireland proposed to give an
account to the house of all the steps which he had taken
in the late trial in their consecutive order. Within a few
days after the informations had been sworn on which the
trial proceeded the streets of Dublin were placarded with
bills, holding out as a government spy and a wilful perjurer
the principal witness for the crown, Mr. Hughes, a gen-
tleman to whose honour and integrity Mr. O'Connell
himself had borne testimony in the course of the trial.
The bill was sent before the grand jury on the 2d of No-
vembery ; and on the 6th, while it was still before them,
an application, which might long before have been made
to the commission, was made to the Court of Queen's
Bench, charging perjury against the principal witness,
with a view to prejudice the minds of the grand jury.
The neat application was for copies of the indictment ;
they asked for eight copies, calculating probably upon
delay; but this move had been anticipated, and the eight
copies were all ready, and were at once handed over.
They then required to examine all the copies with the
original, hoping to find some valiance ' • but here they were
again foiled, by the care with which the copies had been
prepared. They next required the names of the witnesses
and the caption as parts of the indictment; but, consider-
ing these attempts also as made solely for delay, he had
resisted them, and the court had decided in his favour.
Then came a set of pleas in abatement, again for delay ;
be resisted the reception of them as too late, filed demur-
rers instantly, and proposed to argue them next morning ;
but the traversers' counsel, who had been five days in
preparing these pleas, required a further four day rule
before they would come to the argument. In resisting
these delays, be had done only what, as a public officer, he
was bound to do. The argumentcame on, and his demur-
rers were allowed. This was on the 22d of November.
He had then called upon the court, on the authority of
decided cases, to require an immediate plea ; and then at
length, though not without a further struggle for more
time, a plea of " Not Guil;y" was put upon the record.
The term being now near its end, he had applied to the
court to exercise its statutory power of specially fixing a
trial at bar in vacation. This they opposed—first, because
they wished more time for preparation ; and, secondly,
because of the state of the special jury books, which, as
they then stood, comprehended only twenty-five Catholics
able to serve. On the second ground, and on that solely,
'be bad assented to a postponement from the 11th of De-
cember to the 15th of January. He had expected that the
new jury lists would be earlier ready, and he did still think
that the clerks of the peace had not been so diligent as
they ought. On the 29th or 30th of December the jury
papers were handed to the jury, whose duty it was, within
ten days from that time, to prepare a special jury list.
Until the sheriff had completed that list, it was liable to
alteration ; and if the crown solicitor had consented to
give a copy, as he was asked to do, before that time, and
an alteration had taken place meanwhile, there would have
been a fresh application for delay on the ground that the
traversers had been misled by the list. On the special
jury list for 1843, which he had consented to pass by, there
had been twenty-five Roman Catholics ; on that for 1844,
which he had consented to wait for, there were 188. A
protest was made against the ballot for the jury, on the
ground that a p.per, containing Roman Catholic names,
had been omitted in the recorder's office. To that protest
the crown solicitor certainly did not think it his duty to
accede. He must observe, that the striking of a special
jury was not in the nature of a challenge • it was compul-
sory on each party to strike; and it might as well be in-
quired what motives had influenced the strike on the side
of the defendants, as what motives bad guided the crown.
On the 12th of January a motion was made to quash the
jury panel. Sir T. Wilde had said, the Irish Attorney-
General ought to have consented, but he had practised a
delusion on the house and the public in not stating what
the consequences of such a consent would have been. He
himself would therefore explain them. The panel enultl
have been quashed only upon the principle that the jury
list of 1844 was a nullity. There were other cases to be
tried in Ireland besides this traverse ; and if he had as-
sented to any addition to the- jurors' book, every case to
be so tried would have been effected ; but, in truth, and
for that very reason, he had no power to consent, and so
it had been admitted by some of the traversers' own
counsel. No doubt he might have consented to quash the
panel altogether; but the law prescribed, that where the
panel of any year should be quashed, all cases must be
tried by the panel of the preceding year; and if the new
panel, containing 188 Roman Catholics, had been set
aside, either the traversers must have been tried on the
old panel, containing only twenty-five Roman Catholics,
or the trial must have been postponed to 1845. There
had been a strange affidavit of Mr. Mahony about the
omitted names. Mr. Justice Perrin had declared his
conviction that there was nothing in this to affect the
Parties conducting the prosecution ; whether there might
not hale been some contrivance by a certain Roman Ca-
tholic eletk in the office, who had very improperly allowed
the traversers attorneys to have access to the papers was
another question ; certainly Mr. Mahony had not stated
in his affidavit that this clerk was unconscious of the
transaction. He then came to the striking of the Roman
Catholics from the jury list. The crown solicitor had
stated on affidavit, that he believed these Catholics to be
repealers • Mr. Shell had said in court he would disprove
that on ;ffidavit, but, after waiting a month Mr. shell,
instead of producing an affidavit founded on the regular
registers of the Repeal Association, which record every
individual subscriber, had produced an affidavit on the
mere hearsay of the traversers' attorney, and even this
applying to only two individuals. Most of the other
nine were, in fact, not only repealers, but very active
repealers. There was a perfect right to strike off any in-
dividuals, without any reason at all ; but here there was
reason of the most cogent kind. Sir T. Wilde bad said,
that the Irish Attorney-General would not have dared to
set aside the jurors on a common jury, when the chal-
lenge would have been an open one. Yes, lie would have
dared to challenge, and would have challenged, every corn.
mon juror whom he had believed to be a repealer. How

had the powers at present in his hands been exercised
during the late government by those who now criticised
his conduct? He stated the circumstances of a case in
in which Mr. Shed, prosecuting on a charge which
affected a fellow-creature's life, had set aside, out of 36
jurors, no fewer than 29 protestants ; when the prisoner
was allowed, in all. but twenty peremotory challenges.
What had been the cause for setting aside those twenty-
nine Protestants?. He defended himself against the charge
of petty hostility in harshly compelling the presence of the
traversers throughout the trials, showing the gross uns
truth of that imputation. He vindicated the frame and
scope of the indictment, and ridiculed the notion that the
leaders of a monster meeting could not be guilty of over-
awing the legislature, unless the mob were actually gath-
ered together in Palace-yard. The count which had been
represented by the Attorney-General of the late govern-
ment as such a strain upon the law, was copied verbatim
from an indictment preferred by himself under that ad-
ministration : If, then, the present law-officers of Ire-
land had been to blame, it was for having fallen into what
he must admit was a general bad habit—the imitation of
the acts of the late Attorney-General. He repelled with
indignation the charge of partiality adduced against the
Lord Chief Justice. With reference to his challenging
Mr.Fitzgibbon, the Attorney-General said, complaint has
been made against me—and I admit with just foundation
—for one act which I committed in the course of these
proceedings. I was misled by a feeling of irritation which
ought not to have governed any act of mine, circumstan-
ced as I was. (Hear, hear.) I permitted myself, the
court having adjourned for a few minutes, immediately
after insulting language had been applied to me, to take a
step which I deeply regret. (Cheers.) But this I can
say, that lam sure there is-not a gentleman in this house
who would not make allowance for a person acting under
the impression that an improper charge had been brought
against him. (Cheers.) I wish to be understood, when
I advert to Mr. Fitzgibbon's name, that I shall not say
one syllable to hurt his feelings. He is absent, but I be-
lieve if he were present he would admit that language had
escaped from him inadvertently. Entertaining those
views, I shall not say one syllable that can inculpate him.
It would be base and treacherous of me if I did so. I
take the blame upon myself—(cheers,)— and can only
say further that I considered—l cannot say whether
rightly or wrongly—that I had had a gross insult passed
upon me. Whatever my character may be—and I think
I may appeal to my political opponents—l may at least
say that, during the whole of my life in Ireland, I have
kept up a character for personal honour and integrity.
(Loud cheers.) Conceiving that an imputation had been
thrown out against what I considered to be my personal
honour, in a feeling of excitement during the adjourn-
ment of the court for two or three minutes, I penned that
note. If the court had never adjourned, it would never
have happened at all, because it would have passed off in
a few minutes. (Cheers.) 1 wrote the note out of court,
it was suggested that I wrote it in court, but that was not
so : I wrote it in a chamber adjoining the court, and I
thought that the judge and jury and all were out of court ;
not that that indeed makes much difference ; nor do I
urge it as an excuse—far from it. (Loud cheers from all
sides of the house.) I admit I acted with impropriety,
but under the circumstances, with a strong feeling that a
personal insult had been passed upon me, I do think that
gentleman of generous feeling will be inclined to make
some allowance. (Renewed cheers.) I shall add noth-
ing more with respect to this, except that I am willing to
say, as Mr. Fitzgibbon is absent, that I believe I was mis-
taken in the construction I put on his language. (Cheers.)
I only advert to it, because if I did not, it might be sup-
posed from my silence that I am a person not willing to
admit when I am wrong ; and I am by no means desirous
to be subject to such an imputation. (Cheers.) He did
not know whether he had, but he might have, omitted to
answer some matters which had been alleged against him,
in consequence of not having been present at the earlier
part of the debate, and he was not so practiced in the
ways of that house as other honourable gentlemen might
be. lie did not feel quite at home yet in the House of
Commons, though he felt quite at home in court. (Loud
cheers.) But he felt bound to say that the attention and
patience with which he had been listened to in the course
of the remarks which he had thought it necessary to make,
and the indulgence which he had received from both sides
of the house, would make him more easy for the future,
and when next he should feel called upon to address them
he trusted that he should not make so gross a trespass on
their time as he had upon the present occasion. (The
right honourable and learned gentleman, upon resuming
his seat, was saluted with a burs. of applause from every
quarter of the house ; he was immediately surrounded by
a large number of friends, who seemed to compliment
him most warmly upon the speech which he had just made
to the house.)

Mr. D. BROWNE rose while the house was still in con-
siderable confusion, and proposed the adjournment of the
debate. There were several cries for " Sheil," but that
right honourable and learned gentleman shook his head
and called out once or twice—" No, I shan't; no, 1
shan't; and as there was no amendment to the motion,
the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. GIBSON, the following gentle-
men were appointed the Select Committee upon :Taming,
viz,—Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Lascelles, Viscount Palmer-
ston, Mr. James Wortley, Mr. Hume, Mr. B. Escott,
Mr. V. Smith, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Hayter, Viscount
Jocelyn, Mr. Hawes, Colonel Peel, Capt. Berkeley, Sir
H. Seymour, and Mr. M. Sutton.
The orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.*--TIIURSDAY.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved for certain papers connected
with the appointment of Mr. Holt Waring to the deanery
of Dronaore, impugning the appointment as one ill calcu-
lated to conciliate the Catholics, inasmuch as Mr. Holt
Waring had been secretary and chaplain to the Grand
Orange Lodge of Ireland, of which he had been a member
from 1798 to 1825. This appointment, he contended, was
inconsistent with the principles laid down in Sir R. Peel's
letter to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland respecting the
disposal of church patronage in that country.
The Earl of RIPON said the office was merely a dignity
without any emolument, and Mr. Ilolt Waring had been
recommended for the appointment as the oldest beneficed
clergyman in the diocese, not only by the chapter but also
by the bishop: _ _ _

The Marqilis of WESTMEATH attacked Lord Monteagle
in very warm and personal language, reminded him of the
retirement of Sir John Newport, in order to make room
for himself, and said that the words " Holt Waring "
looked as well attached to a sinecure as that of " Spring
Rice" to a pensioned peerage.
The papers were ordered, and their lordships adjourned.