The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-05-19 00:00:00

TM LIVERPOOL STANDARD_

acting judicially could, for a continuance, give that undivided
attention which such duties required fora longer period than five
hours a-day, being thirty hours in the week ?To do more had
been attempted by- judge after judge, and the late master of the
fulls had been anxious to extend the time, but, as was well
known, he bad not succeeded in the attempt; nay, he had been
heard to declare that he did not think it possible to preside use-
fully in a 'court of equity longer than from ten to three. The
present commissioners for holding the great seal had said that
for a short time they might extend their sittings to six hours
a-day, so as to give the thirty hours per week within five days of
each week, and the equity members of the commission had thus
one day to give to the duties of the court of chancery. It should
be recollected, too, that at this time of the year, when there
were so many appeals to be heard, two or three days were all
that were usually given in the week to the business of the court
of chancery, and now the commissioners in vacation were willing
to increase their attendance, if necessary, as far as four days in
the week; he would therefore contend that the learned persons
to whom the great seal was intrusted gave as much time as an
individual lord chancellor could do to judicial duties; at the
same time he begged it to be observed that the arrangement as
it stood was merely of a temporary nature, and he saw no reason
to apprehend that the public would have any reason to coniplain
during the short time it was likely to continue.
Mr. PEASE could not but take notice of the long list of high
legal functionaries who were at present receiving large salaries
from the state, and the number also who were receiving pen-
sions. Lord Eldon, £4,000; Lord Lyndhurst, £5,000; Master
of the Rolls, £7,000; the Vice-Chancellor,,£6,ooo; Puisne
Judge, £S,(X); (and £lO,OOO a-vear divided amongst the three
latter ;) Lord Brougham, £5,000; Lord Chief Justice of the
Court of King's Bench, £8,000; which, with £-1,000 additional
to him as speaker ofthe House of Lords, made £12,000. Surely,
in times like the present, when every interest of the state was
suffering, it became the duly of parliament to curtail such ex-
pendit u re.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. H i'ME gave notice that to-morrow he should move for a
return of the amount of fees payable by the Lord Chancellor or
the commissioners on taking the custody of the great seal, and
on assuming the office of speaker of the House of Lords, with
an account of the patronage, lay and ecclesiastical, exercised.by
thilse functionaries.
Adjourned at a quarter-past eleven o'clock.

• HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY.
Lord STRAFFORD (Sir J. Byng) took the-oaths and his seat.
His lordship was introduced in the usual form by the Marquis
of Tavistock (as Baron Howland), and Lord Lynedoch.

COUNTY RATES.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the owners
and occupiers of land in the county of Stafford, with respect to
the grievances connected with the expenditure of county rates.
The noble Duke concluding by expressing his hopes that His
Majesty's ministers would not allow the present session to pass
without introducing some measure that would cause this tax to
be more fairly levied.
Viscount MELBOURNE intimated that it was the intention of
His Majesty's ministers to take this subject into their con-
sideration. •

PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND.
The Earl, of WICKLOW, seeing the noble viscount who was at
the head of His Majesty's Government in his place, without
meaning to show any demonstration of hostility, and without
wishing to embarrass the present Administration,. lwgged leave
to put a question to him which he'conceived to be of very con-
siderable importance. Circumstances had lately occurred in
Ireland which were reported in the public papers, of such a
nature, that he should be guilty of a dereliction of duty if he did
not notice them in his place tor the purpose of ascertaining the
fact—he alluded to the mode and manner of entry into Ireland
of the newly appointed Lord-Lieutenant of that country. He
had no complaint to make against anybody of his countrymen,
who wished in a proper manner to evince their approbation of
any particular favourite. He was the last man to disapprove
of a proper demonstration of public feeling, such, for instance,
as that which accompanied his noble friend near him (the Earl
of Paddiugton) on his departure from Ireland. Of that de-
r" Justration of public feeling he approved, but, if report were
/rue, the mode and inannel which distinguished the demonstra-
tion of public feeling when the noble earl to whom he had al-
luded arrived in Ireland were of a totally different character and
nature. It was understood that the assembly which met to-
gether on that occasion was organized by the will of an indi-
vidual who possessed great power and influence in Ireland.
Great bodies of men, it appeared, were assembled, he would
say illegally assembled, together; and orders were given
in the Roman Catholic chapels in Dublin and its neighbour-
hood
for persons to meet at a given hour. Under these
circumstances, he felt no hesitation in saying, that the procession
which was, thus brought together was directly against the com-
mon law of the land (hear, hear), and at variance with a law
passed two years ago, which was brought in by His Majesty's
then Ministers, and when the noble viscount was Secretary of
State for the Home Department—he alluded to the act'for the
prevention of disturbances, and for the suppression of illegal
meetings in Ireland; which made it a very serious offence for
any body of men to assemble with banners and the symbols of
party. Now, if the statements given in the newspapers were
true—if the noble earl had lent himself to such a proceeding as
he (the Earl of Wicklow) had described, then the noble earl
had rendered himself incapable of holding the sword of justice
with an impartial hand in Ireland. (Hear.) Their lordships
well knew that it was the noble earl's duty to pursue a course
of impartial justice to all parties in that country, and to see
that the law to which he had particularly alluded was properly
administered. That being the case, be would ask, how the
noble earl could carry the law into effect with reference to other
parties, when he himself, in the first instance, had tolerated so
direct a violation of it? (Hear, hear.) Such conduct must
have a tendency to discourage the loyal and well-affected in
that country. They certainly could not have confidence in a
governnent which was lending itself to a party, the conduct of
which His Majesty's present Ministers had so often denounced
in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Another circumstance was also
recorded to have taken place, which, if-true, was of considerable
importance. He understood that the Solicitor-General for
Ireland had, at a public dinner, sanctioned a toast having for
its object a speedy repeal of the union; coupling this with cir-
cumstance of banners having been carried in the procession
inscribed with " Repeal of the union," "No tithes," and
"O'Connell for ever," the whole proceeding appeared to him
to be of an alarming character, and he hoped that the noble
viscount would take the opportunity which he had thus given
him to set the minds of the people at rest on this subject. l'he
question, therefore, was—first, whether the noble viscount had
received any authentic information that the noble earl had' en-
tered Ireland in the manner which he had deicribed : and,
secondly, what steps had been taken by the Government to
show its disapprobation of such proceeding? (Hear, bear.)
Viscount Meteoun NE said, that he had received no official
information on the subject alluded to. He certainly under-
stood from the newspapers that the entrance of the lord-lieute-
nant into Dublin brought together a great concourse of peo-
ple, and that there was a very enthusiastic demonstration of
public feeling; but he had not heard of any illegal assemblor
of any exhibition of party banners, such as were contemplated
by the act alluded to by the noble earl. If the law had been
violated, no doubt it would be vindicated by the ordinary
means which were in the power of the government. With re-
spect to means having been taken to induce persons to meet
for the purpose of celebrating the arrival of the lord-lieutenant,
he should only say that such assemblies were not always spon-
taneous. He dared to say that the procession which accom-
panied his noble friend (the Earl of Haddington) to the water's
side was not entirely without notice. He could not suppose
that that procession was brought together without some degree
of notice being given to those who approved of hia noble
friend's principles ;. indeed, it was not in the nature of things
that it should be so. Meetings of that kind could not be en-
tirely spontaneous,—they could not be brought together on the
moment,—they must, in fact, always be produced by previous,
concert and settlement. But, if anything of an illegal nature,
had taken place on the occasion referred to, if any thing had,
occurred that deserved the strong animadversion and severe
censure which was intimated, if not absolutely pronounced by
the noble earl, he was perfectly sure that his noble friend who
was now at the head of the government of Irelanct was so en-
tirely possessed by the spirit of impartiality and equity—was
so entirely anxious to act on the principle Of even and equal-
handed justice—was so entirely determined not to place himself
in the hands of any party or faction whatsoever, that he would
administer the law strictly and fairly towards all parties, and
that he would be the very first to enforce it against any persons
who might have violated it on this, or who should violate it on
any other occasion. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl had re-
ferred to some other facts 'which be (Viscount Melbourne)
would not allude to, because be was not in the slightest degree
acquainted with them. He could not, however, allow this op-
portunity to pass without declaring the grounds on which the
government both in this country and Ireland were determined
to act, and without expressing his certain conviction that those
who violated the law would be made to answer for that viola-
tion. (Hear; hear.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wishe6 to put a question on
this subject:—He would ask whether the orders for the proces-
sion had been issued by the protector of the noble viscount's
administration, the hon. and learned member for Dublin—he-
fore the noble lord's arrival in Ireland? If so, to whom was
confided the duty of carrying them into effect?—and whether
such proceedings had received the sanction of the lord-lieute-
nant ? After describing what took place on the arrival of Earl
Mulgrave in Dublin, the noble marquis proceeded to say, that
the government ought to demand of the lord lieutenant of Ire-
land an explanation of what occurred, and whether that which
was alleged to have happened had or had not taken place.
Viscount MET...riot:axe thought the observations of the noble
marquis uncalled for—het Lord.M.) deptecated.party meetings,
but it was not in the power of Lord Mulgiaie on this side Br thi
water to prevent preparations made for his reception in Dublin.
After some observations from the Earl of Haddington, the
Marquis of Londonderry, and Lord Brougham, the conversa-
tion terminated.

which should be applied to it, upon the books —for him post-
pone his motion, so as to reserve the consideratiorrof the whole
question until a future day, when his noble friend (Lord John
Russell)) might be in the house? (Hear, and a laugh.)
The Marquis of CH AN nos consented to postpone his motion
until the 25th of May • on which day ho gave notice, that in the
committee of supply he would move a resolution respecting the
distress of the agricultural interest, and the amount and nature
of the relief which should be applied to it, not only in the re-
mission of local taxation, but in reference to the burden of taxes
generally.
Mr. RICE thanked the noble marqhis for his courtesy, and
said he was confident the noble marquis himself would feel it
more satisfactory that the debate should be conducted in the
presence of his noble friend, whose absence from the house
could not be prolonged much longer. (Hear, and laughter.)

O'CONNELI: IN KERRY.
Mr. SHAW.—Sir, I trust the house will indulge me with their
attention for a few minutes in a matter personal to myself, but
which I would not trouble the house with on that account, did I
not conceive that it concerned in some degree their own charac-
ter and honour. I allude to a statement which a short time

sinte I made in this house, and which the hon. and learned
member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) denied, as entirely with-
out foundation in truth.

Mr. COBBETT objected to the right hon. gentleman's pro-
ceeding in this strain.
Mr. O'CoN NELL also rose to order. Was the right hon. gen-
tleman about to make a motion or to ask a question ? If he
were not going to move something, he could not make a speech.
He was only entitled to ask a question, if he meant to do so, but
he could not preface it with a speech.
Mr. SHAW.-1 am neither going to•make a motion nor to ask
a question, nor to make a speech, which I should be at liberty
to do if I pleased. I beg the indulgence of the house for a few
moments whilst I make an explanation personal to myself.
(Hear, hear.) It will be in the recollection of the house, that
on the occasion to which I refer the hon. and learned gentle-

man challenkea me roacduce; single instance of violence or
breach of the law having occurred in the county of Kerry in
connexion with the recent election there; that in reply I said
that I had heard on good authority, and believed, that shortly
before the election the hon. and learned gentleman had gone to
a person of the name of Murphy, a Roman Catholic trader in
the town of Killarney, and asked him whether he intended to
vote for the knight of Kerry, that Murphy said be did, and that
the hon. and learned member answered, " If you do, I'll have
_ .

a cross or mark put upon your door," and threatened him with
the consequences; and that shortly after Murphy's house was
violently attacked, and his person assaulted; upon which the
house cannot forget the solemn manner in which the hon. gen-
tleman stepped forward and called God to witness that from be-
ginning to end the whole story was false. The Mirror of Par-
liament thus reports the hon. and learned gentleman :—" Mr.
O'Connell rose, and advancing towards the centre of the floor,
said—' I declare most solemnly, in the presence of that God,
who is to judge me, the whole story is totally false.'" The au-
thority upon which I made the statement was that of the Earl
of Kenmare, the lieutenant of the county, a distinguished no-
bleman, differing front me in, polities and religion, and with
whom I have no other connexion than joitling in that just es-
teem with which he is universally regarded in Ireland. Imme-
diately after what had occurred in this house, thinking it possi.:
We that Lord Kenmare or myself might have been mistaken or
Misled, I felt it my duty to communicate, with his lordship, in
order that I might either withdraw or corroborate the statement
I had made, and the result of that communication has been, that
I am furnished by Lord Kenmare with the fullest corroboration
of what I had previously stated. Lord Kenmare has sent me a
statement of it, written by Mr. Murphy himself, hearing testi-
mony. at the same time to the high character of Mr. Murphy,
who is a Roman catholic, and the molt eminent and extensive
trader in the town of Killarney: he offers to verify his written
account by affidavit, or in any other manner that may be re-
quired of him, and I will shortl;, read it to the house. The let-
ter is signed " David William 'Murphy," and addressed to the
"Earl of Kenmare ;" it commences by stating the unwilling-
ness of Mr. Murphy to have his name brought before the public,
but that in compliance with the wish,of Lord Kenmare, he pro-
ceeds to detail what occurred between himself and Mr. O'Con-

nell on the 6th of January last in the following words:—" Hay.
ingbeen told by Mr. Charles O'Connell, Mr. O'Connell's son
in-law, that Mr. O'Connell would be glad to see me at Finn's
Hotel, I went, and found with him several of his friends and
near relatives. He spoke for some time on the election politics
of the county, and after some remarks on the knight of Kerry,
asked me if it was possible I intended (as he heard) to vote fin-
him (the knight.) I answered that I did. He said—" What,
you ? I will have a black streak put on Your door, and none
shall dare to enter it; and if that has no effect, your car shan't
pass through Milltown or Killerglin, and in Cahirciveen you
shan't have as much room as you could let it down in.' This
conversation occurred in presence of his osvn.verynear relatives,
and was publicly spoken of by some of them that same night.
On the evening of the day on which the election for the borough
of Tralee closed (Saturday, January 10) an infuriated mob
made a violent attack on my house, and broke my windows, as-
saulted myself, and were it not for the timely interference of a
magistrate with some soldiers who happened to have been sta-
tioned here at the time, would have gone to extremities which
it would have been impossible to check. I may further add,
that amongst the persons attacking my house was one with
ignited straw. These facts, my lord, can be substantiated by
several others than myself, and are in this county quite noto-
rious." If this written statement, investigated and verified by
Lord Kenmare, wanted further proof, I have seen since a gen-
tleman who was on the spot at the time; I have received vari-
ous letters on the subject; some have been handed me by hon.
members in this house,_ English and Irish, all corroborating to
the utmost Mr. Murphy's account, and also that the circum-
stances are perfectly notorious in the neighbourhood. I will
abstain from a single observation on this case, further than to
express a hope that I have completely justified my original
statement, and I leave it to the hon. member (Mr. O'Connell)
to justify, if he can, his unqualified solemn asseveration that the
whole story from beginning to end was false. (Cheers.)
Mr. O'CoNNELL said it was easy to see from that cheer—that
party cheer—what was the object of the right honourable and
learned member. When the right hon. and learned gentleman
made a charge of this nature before against bins, he had gone
across the house, and asked him what was the name of this
Murphy, and he (Mr. Shaw) told him he did not know. It was
found afterwards, and David was inserted in the Mirror of Par-
liament, although David had never been used in that house.
The learned recorder hid spoken only of a man named Murphy,
without. using his Christian name. He did not know at the
thaw what Murphy. could have been meant. But- new, by the
insertion of " David" in the report, the right hon. and learned
gentleman had quite changed the venue of his story. It was'
quite a different thing. Before it was stated that he (Mr.
O'Connell) went to the house of a man, and on his saying he
would vote lot the Knight of. Kerry, that he (Mr. O'Connell)
had declared that he would mask his door with a white cross,
and threatened him with the consequences. Now it appeared,
on the contrary, that a man came to him about something else,
and that then he said something to him about a white cross or a
black streak. At the time he spoke he knew nothing about this
matter; he had no recollection of the conversation, and if he
had known that it related to David Murphy, he should have
laughed at it. He was not in Kerry for ten days before the at-
tack on David Murphy's house was made. Why, David Mur-
phy was a tenant of his ; he had the Standing for his carts at
Cahirciveen from him. . Murphy's brother was an agent for the
election of his nephew at the time. He remembered, in a con-
versation that be had with David Murphy in the drawing-room
of the inn, Murphy said to him that Mullins had better look, to
himself, for his (Mullins's) father had died without assets, and
owed him money, and that Mr. Mullins must now pay him or
he would not vote for him. He (Mr. O'Connell) then jokingly
observed to him, that if Mullins paid the debt, and he voted for
him afterwards, he (Mr. Murphy) would be bribed. He did not
know what he might have said about the Knight of Kerry ; he
was then canvassing against him with all his might, and he had
done it successfully, (" Hear, hear," from the ministerial
benches.) But it was an idle jocular conversation, from which
he anticipated no consequences, and from which none did re-
sult. Ile should not have remembered even so much of this
conversation if after the trial which took place for the attack on
Murphy's house, which he saw in the newspaper, he had not
written to Kerry to inquire about the matter. He was in Dub-
lin engaged about his own election when the atttack on Murphy's
house was made. There was nothing serious in it, as had
been stated • a couple of windows were broken, and the assault
on himself was so trifling that it could hardly he proved. It
was only taking him by the collar, or somethi-ng of that kind.
It originated in his striking a little girl who was going past his
shop-door, crying, "No knight ;" he gave her a slap on the
cheek, which nearly knocked her down, and her friends it was
that broke the glass. He saw, too, in the Tralee paper, that
David Murphy. on his cross-examination, was asked why he
voted against Morgan John O'Connell, the nephew of his old
friend, to which he replied, that the contest was not with Morgan
John, or he would have plumped for him. As to Lord Kenmare,
there was no man under such a compliment to him (Mr.
O'Connell ;) he was indebted to him for £40,000, and his lord-
ship had certainly treated him with unqualified ingratitude. In
violation of his promise he had given his support to the Knight
of Kerry, and, disappointed in his electioneering projects, he
had entered into an holy alliance with the learned recorder to
annoy and accuse him. (Laughter.) The question, however,
was now altogether different, even as reported by the right hon.
and learned gentleman in the _Mirror of Parliament. The trans-
action first alluded to was totally different from the present,
and if the question was now put to him as it was formerly, he
should meet it with as solemn a contradiction. He apologized
to the house for trespassing so long on them, and wished the
right hon. and learned gentleman joy of his .occupation.—
(" Hear," and laughter.)
Mr. SHAW, in explanation, stated, that as to the name of
David; lae-iimnediately discovered it by reference ta .a letter,
and mentioned it to at least twenty persons, that the parties.to
the assault on Murphy had pleaded guilty, and now were under
sentence of some months' imprisonment; and with respect to
the hon. gentleman's statement, that Lord Kenmare had pro-
mised not to take any part against his nephew, he (Mr. Shaw)
was authorised to state, that Lord Kenmare had never made a
promise to that effect. He also observed, that there could be no
cross-examination, as the accused pleaded , guilty, and were
sentenced to some months' imprisonment. He also denied that
he had reported either his own or the hon. and learned gentle-
man's speech in the Mirror of Parliament.
Mr. O'CoNN ELL positively denied the truth of Lord Kenmare's
disclaimer, and said he could prove it. He stated also that there
was a cross-examination, Murphy and two others hiving given
evidence before the prisoners pleaded guilty. There was no
attempt to deny that Lord Kenmare was indebted to him for
£40,000. (.. Oh, oh," and laughter.) He again declared that
he had no idea David Murphy was the man alluded to on the
former occasion.
Mr. M. J. O'CoNNEr.c stated he had in his possession a letter
from Lord Kenmare, dated the '27th of December, in which he
stated, " It is not my intention to take any part in the election."
He added, in reference to the charge of intimidation, that the
majority of the electors in Killarney voted for the Knight of
Kerry.