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

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—ThuasnAr.

Sir R. PEEL stated, in reply to a question from Sir G•
Grey, that dispatches had been received confirming the
occupation of Otaheite by the French: He hoped, how-
ever, that the event had occurred without the previous
sanction of the French government, and thought that at
present any discussion on the subject would be premature.
The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. M. O'Corz-
NELL, who spoke in support of the motion.
After Mr. Gregory and several members had spoken,
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS sought to show that the repeal
agitation had not been undertaken with any view to do
good to Ireland, but in order to restore to power a party
that never either could or would do good to that country.
He did not believe that any British ministry would ever
abandon the church ; but every Irish grievance, he hoped,
would be redressed, so far as this could be done con-
sistently with the security to the church.
Mr. SHELL began by defending himself against the
charge brought against him by the Attorney General for
Ireland, of having a packed jury, on the occasion of a trial
for murder at the Tipperary assizes. At that trial it was
his particular wish that the prisoner should be tried by a
mixed jury, and finding the opposite party were setting
Catholics aside, he determined to do the same to Pro-
testants. The consequence was that they obtained a jury
of seven Catholics and five Protestants. Mr. Sheil then
read extracts from his own speech on the occasion of that
trial, to show the liberal and forbearing spirit in which he
had carried on the prosecution. The right hon. gentle-
man next proceeded to an elaborate criticism of the con •
duct of government in the late trial, and argued that while
so many suspicious circumstances existed, a committee
was absolutely necessary, that a searching inquiry might
be instituted. He dwelt with much earnestness on what
has been called the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the
jury. Eight of those Catholics, he admitted, had been
most properly excluded ; they were members of the Re-
peal Association, and ought, therefore, not to have been
on the jury. There were two, however, who were quite
unexceptionable, neither of them having ever subscribed
to the funds of the Repeal Association. Was it wonder-
ful that the Catholics, to a man, should have been indig-
nant at such treatment? After long dwelling on the de-
tails of the trial, the right hon. gentleman called on the
government to say how was Ireland to be governed ? Pro-
testant juries, Protestant verdicts, and Protestant gaolers
must have Protestant bayonets to support them. The
great question, however, was the position of the two
churches. Government must have measures on this sub-
ject in contemplation, and parliament ought not to bekept
in ignorance of them.
At the conclusion of the right hon. gentleman's speech
the debate was again adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY.

The adjourned debate on the state of Ireland was re-
commenced by the ATTORNEY-GENERAI, (Sir P. Pol-
lock), who explained the reasons by which he had him-
self been induced to postpone a revenue trial alluded to
by Sir T. Wilde, observing that it was only under special
circumstances, involving some real hardship on the de-
fendant, and not upon every light suggestion, that he
should think it right to consent to such postponement.
He gave a manly exposition of the principles on which,
at the outset of his official career, Sir R. Peel had coun-
selled him to act, and of the way in which he had fol-
lowed that advice, looking not to the mere letter of the
law, but to the general considerations of justice and
mercy.„, He animadverted with much pleasantry on Mr.
'llacaulay's disclaimer of the legal character and profes-
sion ; and having expressed his admiration for the talent
evinced in the right hon. and learned member's late
speech, he commented upon its remarkable deficiency in
point of practical suggestion. Addressing himself to the
subject of the Irish trials, he exposed the absurdity of the
complaint that the case had not been left to a common
jury : indeed he should as soon have thought of taking a
case of high treason to he tried at the quarter sessions.
Mr. Shell had made a mistake in speaking
of the special
jury as selected: the 48 names were first taken by ballot,
then reduced to 24 by a strike of 12 on each side, and
again reduced from 24 to the final 12 by another ballot.
The resort to a special jury in this case had been sanc-
tioned by the unanimous opinion of the law officers on
both sides of the Channel ; and if the lots had fallen un-
fortunately for the traversers, that result was no ground
of imputation upon the prosecutor. He had himself, at
Carmarthen, set aside no fewer than 30 persons called

upon a common jury; he had been obliged to do that,
because he had received credible information that a great
number of the persons on that panel had been out in the
riots ; he had been enabled to do it, because his conduct
on former prosecutions had been honoured with the
__
ap-
probation of parliament, and " character was strength."
But that could not have been done to the full extent in
Dublin, by reason of the extraordinary excitement pre-
vailing there; and thus public justice required, that in-
stead of taking common jurors, the Crown should refer
the subject to a special jury, where the process would be
by striking, and not by challenging. Now he admitted
that, emteris paribus, a Roman Catholic juror on the
Irish trials would have been preferable for the Crown to
a Protestant.; but here ccetera were not paria. He ad-
mitted that the duty of the law officers should be executed
with deference to, public opinion ; but to leave on the jury
a man who had signed a requisition for a repeal meeting,
would have been to merge that duty in a spurious libe-
rality. He much regretted that a notion should have been
circulated of any intention to insult the Roman Catholics:
no man, not even Mr. Shell himself, had a mind more
alien from such a wish. He vindicated the common law
from Sir T. Wilde's attack upon it. The trial by jury
rested on the common law, and the trial by jury
was the foundation of public opinion. The decisions
of the Judges, ,proceeding on no statute, but on the
principles of this common law, had fixed the most im-
portant grounds of British liberty—had put an end to
general warrants—had settled the right of the imported
slave to freedom—had abolished the state of villenage
throughout this realm. The doctrine of conspiracy was
as old as the law of England ; and he vindicated the rea-
sonableness and utility of it. It had been said, why did
you not indict for attending an illegal meeting? It was
well that such a course had not been taken ; for this jury,
to whom such blind partiality had been imputed, had
refused to find that these meetings were illegal; and if
there had been an acquittal on that ground, you would
now have possessed no check on the repeal movement.
Why not have prosecuted for libel ? He owned that he
did not like the present law of libel; it was his habit to
dissuade even private prosecutors from proceeding upon
it - and prosecutions for public libel had been disused not
only by himself but by all the law officers for a consider
able time. He hoped he should not get into disfavour by
showing that he had himself, on one occasion or other,
done almost all the things charged against the Irish
Attorney-General. For instance, with respect to the
challenge to the array, he had done at Cardiff just what
the Irish Attorney-General had done in Dublin; he had
demurred to such a challenge. It was a challenge on
account of fraud by persons unknown. There was no
possibility of trying such an allegation, therefore there
was no course but to demur ; and he would cordially share
the responsibility of the Irish Attorney-General. It was
alleged in this debate that Mr. O'Connell had not had a
fair trial ; let that be proved, even now, and in the next
term a new trial would be granted him by the court. This
was the proper and constitutional answer to the imputation
of unfairness. He was sincerely anxious for the welfare
of Ireland, but he held that it might be accomplished with-
out invasion upon the church. On the subject of educa-
tion he would go to the fullest extent ; he felt that to the
relief of the necessities of the poorer country there ought
to be no limit but the means of the richer. He insisted
on the preservation of the union, and urged the necessity
of a harmonious and cordial co-operation of parties. This
speech, both in its progress and when he concluded it,
was cordially cheered from both sides of the house.
Mr. O'CosiN ELL said be was not about to speak of him-
self :he had come for a different purpose—to make a pro-
testation and to ask a question—to protest against any new
wrong to his country, and to ask how Ireland was to be
governed. Before the union she had an independent par-
liament of her own. If she had been raised to a more
prosperous condition by the union, then let the wisdom of
that measure be praised ; for Mr. Pitt's argument in re-
commendation of it was, that it would increase her pros-
perity. What was the result? Mr. Kohl, in his work, as
quoted by The Times of the preceding day, had attested
that her condition was worse than that of the most desti-
tute countries in Europe. There were other testimonies
to the like effect, and particularly the opinions of the poor
law commissioners, who had shown that about one-third
of her whole population was in a state of pauperism. The
ratio of population from 1830 to 1840 had been actually
less than in the ten years preceding. Little would he care
for what had passed on the late trials, if lie could open the
eyes of the wise and good in England to the real state of
Ireland. At all events he could never forget, and be
would fully relate to his countrymen, the sympathy he had
met in England. But he had little hope of justice. Why
were not the franchises, why were not the corporate insti-
tutions, of the two countries the same ? Was there any
man now, on either side of the house, who did not wish
that the union had been made complete. You could have
made your own arrangements then ; but the cry of " the
Church in danger" prevented that, and your union was
like the identification of the shark with its prey—the swal-
lowing up of the one by the other. The Whigs, who suc-
ceeded Mr. Pitt, were able to effect nothing for Ireland ;
all they asked was but to make Catholic officers, naval and
military, capable of promot ion, but they could not succeed,
though the measure in reality went only to increase the
Crown's prerogative. The no-popery cry was raised to
an incredible height and extent. Mr. Perceval made ex-
clusion his staple. He resolved that the Catholics should
go no further ; but they resolved that they would, and they
combined for that purpose. Mr. O'Connell then sketched
the history of these combinations to the year 1825. In
that year all might have been settled ; the clergy, with their
bishops, were prepared to concur in a general arrangement;
but the offer was refused. Upon this the county of Clare
returned him to parliament ; emancipation necessarily
followed, and it was granted, but in an undignified way,
as a thing enforced and extorted. The reform bill was
the consequence of the emancipation ; but in that reform
bill the franchise bestowed upon Ireland was measured
out with the most unjust parsimony ; in proof of which
he referred to several Irish counties with large populations
and small constituencies. The repeal question was then
debated in the house. It was rejected ; but the house re-
solved that it would redress the grievances of Ireland.
That pled e, however, was not fulfilled. He read a
petition which he had presented from the Precursor's So-
ciety, setting forth what they considered and claimed as
their rights. From this he proceeded to the late prose-
cutions. He protested against them, in the name of the
Irish people,—first, because the meetings were not illegal,
unless, indeed, illegality were constituted by the repetition
of many acts each individually legal. Secondly, because
every Catholic had been struck from the jury; with re-
spect to which, he defended himself against a charge
made against him on a former evening—that he had him-
self been guilty of packing jurors. It was a base and
false insinuation that Catholic jurors would perjure them-
selves. He acquitted Mr. Shaw of any evil intention in
the omission of the jury names, and of his clerk having
received any bribe. He blamed the demurrer upon the
challenge to the array ; and spoke in bitter terms of the
Lord Chief Justice's charge to the jury. With respect to
the measures proposed by the government, he treated
them as of little value. What they ought to do on the
subjects they meant to deal with was to make each Ro-
man Catholic bishop a sole corporation—to improve the
borough franchise, clearing it from the grand jury cess—
to give to the counties as large a constituency, in pro-
portion to their population, as the English counties en-
joyed—and to bring back the law of landlord and tenant
to what it was before the union. But there were other
things to be done. The government should remodel the
financial arrangements between England and Ireland—
enlarge the Irish corporate franchise to an equality with
that of England—provide against absenteeism, which was
a crime in Ireland, and ought to be punished—and in-
crease the number of Irish representatives. There was

_ • ___
one more grievance, greater than all the rest—the church.
Until there were religious equality, there could be no
political freedom but that could not be accomplished by
money. The Catholic clergy would not accept a pecuniary
provision ; nor could your treasury afford an adequate
one; any pittance you could give would but irritate, not
satiafy. Could not religion thrive unless backed by
money ? He was going back to Ireland to convey the
answer of parliament, but he feared it would not be a
satisfactory one. His anxiety was to see men act to-
gether like brothers, without distinction between English
and Irish, Protestant and Catholic.
Sir R. PEEL bespoke the indulgence of the House, as
having to travel over a field exhausted by nine nights of
debate. He began by denying the historical assertions of
Mr. O'Connell. The independent Parliament he talked

of had been the most corrupt that ever existed ; and so
Mr. Grattan described it. During its existence, accord-
ing to Mr. O'Connell, the happiness of Ireland was almost
perfect; yet for the last 20 years of its time there had
been a constant series of insurrection acts; that parlia-
ment itself was composed exclusively of protestants ; and
the protestant church existed unbroken. It might be
imagined what misstatements the learned member was ac-
customed to make.to his countrymen, when he could ven-
ture to make such assertions in the face of the House of

Commons. This was a party motion ; and in order to
make it impossible that the government should agree to
it, in which case the noble mover must have proposed
something for the welfare of Ireland, the motion had been
mixed with a censure upon Ministers themselves. The
noble lord seemed to have been' solving a question in poli-
tical noxious, how to combine the maximum of crimina-
tion against the government with the minimum of incon-
venient engagement to himself. He might have been a
little less acrimonious ; considering the sort of house he
lived in, be might have thrown fewerstones. The example
was one which he himself would not ittsjtate. With re-
ference to Lord John Russell's attack ors the Lord Chan-
cellor, he vindicated that eminent nobleman, and the
selection of him for his high office ; repeated Lord Lynd-
hurst's own explanation ; and rebuked thi- conduct of
Lord John Russell and the whigs to Lord-Ilunket, an
Irishman of the highest qualifications, who*, only six
weeks before they left office, they, the advocates Of the ex--
elusive claims of -Irishmen to judicial office, had 'removed
from the Great Seal of Ireland to gratify the vanity of a
Scotchman ! Lord John Russel had endeavoured fornake
him (Sir Robert Peel) responsible for what Mr. Bradshaw
had said at an election dinner about Roman catholic ap-
pointments ; but really this was pushing the doctrine of
conspiracy somewhat further than the Government itself
had ever carried it. He read the instructions which
he had given to the Lord Lieutenant, directing him
to include in his patronage such Roman Catholics as
had not taken part in political agitations. Those instruc-
tions had been acted upon at the first opportunity, in the
instance of Sergeant Howley, and the reward of the go-
vernment bad been a torrent of abuse from the liberal
party. The government had taken office in 1841, and
until March, 1843, they had maintained in Ireland the
smallest force which, except on one or two occasions, had
ever been stationed there; they had reduced the Whig es-
htaebglain. sh reTenhte men.goby2v,e4roaomenthad
In
done Mar ia
clnt,oltBh43g, the agitation
to provoke
this ; but it did not suit the views of some persons that the
government shculd be successful. The period was pecu-
liarly favourable to the movement, because the poor law
of the late ministers was then coming into operation and
galling all the poorer occupiers ; it was also a period of
agricultural depression ; and tere was, moreover, an