Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from inhabitants of Dublin, praying for an immediate Municipal Reform in Ireland. The hon. Member stated that the Report 131 of the Commissioners showed that the judicial duties of the Mayor of Dublin were farmed—that the Presidency of the Court of Conscience was farmed, and that the Sub-Sheriffs farmed their officers by paying from 1,200l. to 1,500l. a-year. He likewise asserted that although the Corporation had denied any right to freemen, they had lately registered more than 100 persons on that ground.
§ Mr. Shawdid not believe that the Mayor's judicial duties were farmed, and he was sure that the arrangement of the Sheriffs could not be fairly termed farming. The Corporation had indeed admitted persons to their freedom on the grounds of birth and servitude, but they claimed the exercise of discretion in conferring the right. He also took the opportunity of informing the House, in opposition to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin on a former night, that his (Mr. Shaw's) father was not foreman of the Grand Jury which had ignored certain bills for bribery—Mr. Stubbs was the foreman of that Grand Jury, his father had nothing to do with it.
Mr. O'Connellasserted positively that he was correct. He would tell the House how the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong. The Bill of which he had spoken was not sent to the usual Grand Jury, but to the Grand Jury of the county of Dublin. He had a certified copy of the panel of the jurors. The Bill had been found under the statute called Lord Plunket's Act, and this certified copy of the panel contained the name of Sir Robert Shaw, and he certainly was on the jury.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the obstinacy of the hon. and learned Gentleman was no proof. He had the document he referred to, and would produce it tomorrow. The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to read some papers, proving that the office of Mayor, the Chairman of the Court of Conscience, and the offices of Sub-Sheriffs in Dublin were farmed out, and that freemen were admitted, not of right, but of the special grace of the Corporation.
§ Colonel Percevalrose, to call attention to the case alluded to the other night, respecting Mr. Hudson. The fact was, that there were two gentlemen employed as counsel by the hon. and learned Gentleman. (Mr. O'Connell), Mr. Hulton, and Mr. Hudson. He had received a letter 132 that morning from a Mr. Edward Maguire, in Dublin, and to whose respectability he had no doubt the hon. and learned Member himself would bear ample testimony. That letter would show the House the nature of the quibble between the names of Hulton and Hudson. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then proceeded to read the letter, which stated that Mr. Hulton was followed by Mr. Hudson, as counsel for Mr. O'Connell, on more occasions than one.
Mr. O'Connellrepeated that Mr. Hudson had refused to act as his counsel, but he had lately heard that after that refusal he did act as a matter of courtesy for a day and a half, until Mr. Hulton was retained. He was not aware until lately that Mr. Hudson had even so far relaxed his positive refusal to be professionally engaged for him (Mr. O'Connell).
§ Petition to lie on the Table.