HC Deb 14 March 1861 vol 161 cc1981-96
SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, he rose to ask the attention of the House to a question with regard to the due and impartial administration of justice in a country nearer than Hungary. He referred to the Crown prosecutions which had taken place in Ireland, in the county of Armagh, at the Spring Assizes held for the county. The House would perhaps remember that in the month of July last there occurred near Lurgan one of those unhappy riots which were not new in that part of Ireland, in the course of which one individual unfortunately lost his life; another was severely wounded, and several were wounded in a less degree. It was hardly necessary for him to say at the outset that no one re- gretted more deeply than he did that such occurrences should ever take place, or was more desirous that proper steps should be taken to bring to justice any persons who were answerable for such conduct. He wished also to say that in the short statement he was about to make, he derived his information from the usual means of public information, the newspapers. He believed that the statements of which he Was about to make use were correct, but he should be most happy to be set right in any unintentional inaccuracy. If, moreover, there had been any prospect of seeing either of his hon. and learned Friends, the Attorney or Solicitor General for Ireland, in their seats in the House within a definite period, it would have been his duty and his happiness to have postponed his inquiry till their arrival. At the recent assizes at Armagh several persons were put on their trial for participation in this affair. The prosecution was conducted by the Government in the usual way. The Attorney General went down from Dublin, the Solicitor General accompanied him, and they were assisted by four other eminent counsel. The first person prosecuted was Samuel Tait. He was indicted for the murder of the individual who, as he (Sir Hugh Cairns) had said, lost his life on this very melancholy occasion. He believed he was right in saying the case opened by the Attorney General was, that there could be no mistake as to the nature of the circumstances. He was indicted for murder, and was accused of having committed the crime in cold blood. It was the duty of the officer of the Crown, having in his hands the usual materials in such cases—the information and the evidence—if he had arrived at the conclusion that it was a case of murder, to call upon the jury to say it was a case of murder. He must here remind the House of an important fact to consider in this case, namely, the position in which a prosecutor stood in Ireland. In that country, instead of individuals being allowed to prosecute in such cases as this, the rule was that the prosecution should be instituted by the State, and be conducted by one or other of the public prosecutors. The first point on which he should ask for an explanation was this: it appeared there was in the possession of the law officers of the Crown the dying declaration of the unfortunate man Murphy who lost his life. Now he had never heard it doubted that if a dying declaration of this kind bore an aspect favourable to the prisoner it was evidence almost conclusive in his favour. The dying declaration in question was to the following effect: Thomas Murphy, being under the apprehension of immediate death, said that on the evening of the 12th of July, 1860, there was a crowd of people passing along the road, consisting of about 200 men, beating drums. He, the declarant Murphy, threw some stones at the crowd four or five times, and a pistol was thereupon fired by a man of the drumming party. Shortly afterwards a gun Was fired in the direction of those who were throwing stones that the stones were first thrown by the Catholic party; but he thought the shots would not have been fired if the stones had not been thrown first. He (Murphy) afterwards received a shot from a pistol or gun, from the effects of which he believed he was then dying, but he did not know who was the person who fired the shot that wounded him. It seemed, therefore, from this declaration that the unfortunate man, who was a Roman Catholic, admitted there was a not on his side by the throwing of stones, and that afterwards guns were fired. This declaration was in the possession of the Crown prosecutor; he (Sir Hugh Cairns) was far from saying that the throwing of stones justified having recourse to fire-arms; but if this declaration had been produced as part of the Crown evidence there would have been an end of any case of murder. That, however, was not the course taken by the Crown. The document was withheld from the jury by the prosecution; but, fortunately, that did not deprive the counsel of the prisoner from using it; he did produce it; but he (Sir Hugh Cairns) need not point out to the House the great difference between such evidence being produced by the Attorney General for the prosecution, and its being brought forward afterwards by the counsel for the defence. His question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Cardwell) would be, was it not the case that this dying declaration, in the possession of the Crown, was withheld and not laid before the jury as part of the case of the prosecution, but left to be produced by the counsel for the prisoner? Of course, when it was produced, there was an end of the charge of murder, and the only question remaining was one of manslaughter. But there occurred this remarkable fact on that question. The custom, for the sake of fair- ness, universally was, that in Crown prosecutions every witness whose name was on the back of the indictment should be examined on behalf of the Crown, and that the prisoner might have the benefit of that witness. He understood there were two witnesses named Hepburn and Morrough, whose names were on the back of the indictment, but who were not called by the Attorney General. There was a question at the trial as to whether Tate was the person who fired the gun or not, and there were discrepancies in the evidence which were commented upon by learned Judge who presided, but the jury thought the question of identity had been sufficiently proved, and they found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. But a most remarkable fact occurred the next day. A trial took place of a man named Wright on a different charge, and it so happened that the Crown called as witnesses the two men Hepburn and Morrough, whom they had not called on the trial of Tate. The examination of these witnesses fell into the channel of the occurrences discussed on the previous day. Hepburn said he was perfectly well acquainted with Tate, and that he saw the man who fired the shot when Murphy fell, but could not tell who that man was. The conclusion from this was irresistible. If Hepburn had been produced at the trial of Tate, and given that testimony, it would have gone far to settle the question of failure of proof of identity. Morrough in the course of his examination said, "I know Samuel Tate very well. On my solemn oath Samuel Tate was not one of the men who fired. I was there, and throwing, and I have not been put on my trial." This witness pledged his solemn oath that the man convicted by the Crown was not the man who fired the shot. Supposing Hepburn and Morrough had been called on the previous day, no one could doubt what would have been the effect of their testimony. It would at once have concluded the trial of Tate, who must have been acquitted. These were the two circumstances to which he first wished to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary. What took place thereupon? Tate had had a verdict passed against him. Application was made to the Judge to arrest sentence, in consequence of the matter which had transpired at the second trial. The learned Judge (Baron FitzGerald) said, if the law advisers of the Crown did not undertake to do so, he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the Executive to the inconsistencies in the evidence, and to the testimony of Hepburn and Morrough on the other trial. It might be a question, the learned Judge added, whether this evidence would not have turned the scale in Tate's favour if it had been produced before the jury. It appeared clear from all the trials that there had been rioting on both sides on this unfortunate occasion. He apprehended that, consistently with the due and impartial administration of justice, the Crown should have taken proceedings, not only against those engaged on one side but also against those engaged in rioting on the other side. The Solicitor General for Ireland had been challenged to say why the Crown had not prosecuted some one on the other side; and the Solicitor General was reported to have said that if any person thought there was any one culpable on the other side, the courts of justice were open, and he might proceed against any such person by information. It was well known, however, that in Ireland no private individual would be allowed to take up what was called a party prosecution. The Attorney General would not allow it. With such an answer from the Attorney General, what would the country think of the administration of justice in Ireland? Here was a case in which the Attorney and Solicitor General went down from Dublin with a bar of four eminent counsel to conduct a prosecution against one side, with the purse of the nation to pay all expenses; but it was nothing short of a mockery to say to those who used the argument that you should prosecute both sides, the courts were open to any one who wished to prosecute on the other side. Was that a course the Government were prepared to endorse? In the second trial Wright was indicted for having feloniously wounded a man named McCann: the prisoner's identity was not proved and he was acquitted. Then came another trial of a remarkable kind. A number of persons were indicted for misdemeanour on this occasion. They were charged with walking in procession with colours and with rioting. It became necessary to empannel a jury. The jury who convicted Tate were all Protestants, and that should have convinced the Attorney General that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a verdict from a mixed or an entirely Protestant jury. But in the first place the counsel for the prosecution announced they were going to direct all the jurymen in the previous cases to stand aside; there was no great harm in that. In the next place it was intimated that all persons who were resident in Lurgan would also be challenged on behalf of the Crown. The justification for this was not very clear, as there was no pretence for saying that Lurgan was implicated as a town, because the not took place at some distance from the town, though the procession had passed through it. Well, the panel was called. This was a trial for a misdemeanour. In a trial for misdemeanour the prisoner had not any right to challenge, unless he could show some definite and distinct cause; although the Crown by its prerogative has an unlimited right of challenge. In a capital case the prisoner may challenge without cause. This being the case, how did the Crown act? Several Protestants were challenged by the Crown, and the jury eventually consisted, as he was informed, of ten Roman Catholics and two Protestants. The jury was so composed in a Protestant county, in the jury lists of which the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics was as ten or eleven to one. According to the newspapers, before the ten Roman Catholics were put upon the jury, sixteen Protestants were challenged by the Crown and ordered to stand aside. He asked the Secretary for Ireland to tell the House why they were challenged. He did not for a moment supppose that the preponderance of Roman Catholics led to a different result from that which would have arisen if the jury had been composed entirely of Protestants. He took the jury men to be gentlemen of respectability, and he believed that notwithstanding the composition of the jury the prisoner had a perfectly fair trial. He was quite sure they conscientiously came to the conclusion they did, and that the conviction was a proper one; but what would the country think, and especially men of strong opinions and of strong bias, when they found that the Government had taken such a course in this prosecution? It was impossible to say that it was a justifiable course, and the middle and lower classes were likely to feel strongly in regard to the conduct of the Government. No one deplored more than he did occurrences such as had given occasion to these trials. Of late years he had observed a feeling unfavourable to such party demonstrations as had given rise to those disturbances growing stronger and stronger among per- sons of all shades of politics in Ireland, and nothing was more likely to increase that feeling than a just and impartial administration of the criminal law when any of those unfortunate events took place. At the same time if there was one means more calculated than another to reanimate slumbering passions of a party character it would be the course taken by the Government in this case, unless some satisfactory explanation of it were given by the right hon. Gentleman. They should have avoided anything which had even the appearance of being directed against, or unduly or improperly weighing against the one side or the other. Sir John Davies said, as the result of his experience in travelling through Ireland, that though the Irish were a very excitable people and felt very warmly, they yet had at heart an innate love of justice and fair play. He believed that was true still. He could not believe that the Government desired to bear unduly on one side or the other, but though he gave them credit for that, it was impossible not to see that what had been done, unless capable of explanation, could not fail to produce in the country feelings exactly the reverse of those which it was desirable should prevail.

MR. CARD WELL

said, he cordially concurred in the concluding observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Heentirely believed that among the qualities of the Irish people there was none more remarkable than their love of equal justice and their disposition to obey the law when carried into effect with an impartial spirit. He sincerely regretted that when a charge was made against the learned Gentlemen who had conducted these prosecutions they should not be present to answer those charges themselves; but since it had fallen to him to answer for them he should proceed to reply to those charges seriatim, though he should regret if, in consequence of the shortness of time, there should seem any imperfection in the information he possessed. He believed, however, that he could give a sufficient and satisfactory answer to the accusation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The last statement made by the hon. and learned Member was, that upon a trial for not and unlawful assembly in a county where the great majority on the panel were Protestants, the legal adviser of the Crown so conducted himself as to obtain a jury which consisted of ten Roman Catholics and two Protestants, and it was understood to be im- plied that the objects of the Crown lawyers was to obtain a jury consisting exclusively or principally of Roman Catholics, in order that certain Protestants might not have the advantage of a fair trial. He would first state exactly, as far as he was acquainted with the circumstances, what occurred, and he would then leave it to the candour and judgment of the House to say whether any charge of that kind was substantiated. He was informed that the jury did not consist of ten Roman Catholics and two Protestants, but of four Protestants and eight Roman Catholics. Moreover, the Judge who presided, one of the most able and popular men on the Irish bench, was a Protestant, and all the Crown counsel, with the exception of the Attorney General, were likewise Protestants. With respect to the constitution of the jury, he would read the instructions sent by the Attorney General for Ireland to the Crown solicitor— Armagh, March 5. My Dear Sir,—I think it right to say, in proceeding with the cases connected with the outrage at Ballymacash, you should exclude from the jury every Member of the Orange Society, and every person who, from residence in the immediate locality, may be affected by prejudice or prepossession upon either side. Truly yours, THOS. O'HAGAN. Those were the only instructions given. They were given to the Crown solicitor, a Protestant, who, in striking the jury, was assisted by the sessional Crown solicitor, also a Protestant. Acting under that instruction the Crown solicitor and the sessional Crown solicitor, both Protestants, had taken particular care in summoning jurors. Upon the first trial the Crown did not exercise the right of challenge in a single instance, but the prisoner challenged every Roman Catholic on the panel, the result being that the jury by whom he had been tried was composed entirely of Protestants. On the second trial the same course was taken; the Crown did not challenge a single juror; and again, the person accused challenged all the Roman Catholics on the list, and had his case dealt with by a jury exclusively Protestant. "When the third trial had come on the Crown solicitor, in the proper discharge of his duty, and without further communication with the Attorney Genera], set aside some jurors whom he believed to be Orangemen and some who resided near the scene of the outrage, there being among the latter several Roman Catholics. Well, then, the case stood thus:—The twenty-four jurors who had served on the former trials were very properly excluded from the third. The Roman Catholics who had been called and who had not served on the first or second trial could not be challenged by the prisoner, inasmuch as the charge against him was one of misdemeanour; and the consequence was that the third jury was composed of eight Roman Catholics and four Protestants, all of whom were selected in the most legitimate way—unless, indeed, it were established that the Crown ought to have taken a course which, in his opinion, it had no right to adopt—namely, to set aside a number of men otherwise perfectly competent to discharge the duties of jurors, on the express ground that they were Roman Catholics. To the verdict of the jury so constituted his hon. and learned Friend opposite said he took no exception; and he (Mr. Card well) might add, on the still higher authority of the eminent Judge who tried the case, that it was impossible upon the evidence adduced to have come to any other conclusion than that at which they arrived. Was it, he would ask, right, under these circumstances, to come down to the House of Commons and charge the law officers of the Crown in Ireland with having shown a disposition to place Roman Catholics on juries in that country to the undue exclusion of their Protestant fellow-subjects? The next charge made against the Irish Executive by the hon. and learned Gentleman was that the culpability in connection with the melancholy occurrence in question being attributable to both parties, the Government had contented itself with prosecuting the Protestant offenders, while against Roman Catholics no prosecution had been instituted. Now, if it could be proved that any of the offenders who ought to have been brought to justice had been allowed to go unpunished, he should admit that some good ground for the accusation of his hon. and learned Friend might have been established. Nothing of the kind could, however, be shown, the reason why persons had been prosecuted on one side and not upon the other simply being that the demonstration which had led to the sad events of which the hon. Gentleman spoke originated with one, the Protestant, side; that the lives lost were those of Roman Catholics, and that the guns fired were discharged by their Protestant opponents. Another reason why no prosecutions had been instituted against the other side was to be found in the fact that no informations had been sworn upon which additional indictments could be based; but if his hon. and learned Friend would undertake to bring forward any particular instances to justify the charges which he had made, he (Mr. Cardwell) would be prepared to deal with them when they came before the House. His hon. and learned Friend went on to say that there were two witnesses whose names stood on the back of the indictment who were not called upon originally to give evidence; but who having on a subsequent occasion, when the charge of attempt to murder was being disposed of, been placed in the box, made statements which, if they had been adduced on his trial, might have led to the acquittal of Tate. Now, he felt assured that his hon. and learned Friend, in referring to that circumstance, did not mean to impute to the law officers of the Crown in Ireland that they had been guilty of the incredible meanness of keeping back a witness because they believed his testimony would be favourable to the accused. He (Mr. Cardwell) could not, however, allow the statement to pass without a clear and emphatic denial, because if he were to do so an erroneous impression as to the course which had actually been pursued by the law officers of the Crown might be created.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, he should be sorry to have his language misunderstood. What he did say was this—assuming that there had been an error of judgment in this matter, he thought it was important that some explanation should be offered as to how such a circumstance could have happened; and he added that he thought the evidence of the two witnesses being withheld was a most important feature in those proceedings.

MR. CARDWELL

The course which had been taken in the instance in question had been adopted with the unanimous concurrence of all the counsel engaged for the Crown—five of whom were Protestants and all of whom were men of eminence. The practice as recognized in Ireland, was, he might add, as he was informed, strictly observed in the case. The informations of both the witnesses alluded to were sworn before the trial, and were placed in the hands of the counsel for the prisoner, as well as in those of the counsel for the Crown. Everything, in short, which the latter knew in reference to the statements which might be anticipated from those witnesses was known also to the former. The witnesses, moreover, were in attend- ance, and ready to he called if the counsel for the prisoner had expressed a wish that that course should be taken. They were not called, however, and on the following day and upon another trial, happened to give evidence which the counsel for the prisoner contended would have been material on the previous trial. All he could say was, that that evidence would be brought under the consideration of his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and, that being so, it was obvious that it was inexpedient he should enter into it at the present moment. He should, therefore, content himself with repeating that the usual practice in Ireland had, so far as he was aware, been followed out in the case, and with repudiating the supposition that the law officers of the Crown in that country could descend to such an expedient as that of keeping back testimony which might be important for the defence of a prisoner upon his trial. Another charge which had been made was that those who advised the Crown in the prosecution of Tate, having before them the dying declaration of the deceased man Murphy, ought to have known that there was no sufficient ground for preferring a charge of murder, and consequently that they ought not to have allowed that charge to be preferred.

SIR HUGH CAIENS

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated the point quite accurately. Whether a charge of murder ought to have been preferred was a matter of opinion. The objection to the course pursued was that, a charge of murder having been preferred, the dying declaration of the deceased was withheld from the jury. It was, no doubt, open to the Attorney General for Ireland to persevere in the charge of murder if he thought proper to do so, but he should not have opened such a charge without accompanying it by a statement of all the evidence which could be produced.

MR. CAKDWELL

said, he had no information from his learned friends with respect to that part of the case, and, of course, he could not state what had influenced them in the course they had taken. But, as he (Mr. Cardwell) understood, the serious part of the charge was that the dying declaration of the man Murphy showed there was no foundation for the accusation of murder, and that such a charge should not have been preferred. ["Sir Hugh Caiens:—That is a mere question of opinion.] He was able to say, however, that the dying declaration was before the Judge and the jury, although he did not know why it was put in for the prisoner instead of for the Crown. In reviewing the evidence the learned Judge had stated the case with the utmost openness and impartiality. He contended that there was nothing in the constitution of those who conducted these trials which could lead the people of Ireland to entertain the mischievous and calamitous impression that there was any disposition on the part of the administrators of the law to hold the scale of justice otherwise than in a firm and equal poise. He entirely concurred in the concluding observations of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, and assured the House that it was the earnest desire of the Government that the conviction that the law would be administered equally to all classes should be fully impressed on the people of Ireland, and that their efforts would be unceasingly directed to effecting that object.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, wherever the life of a fellow-creature was involved it was the glory of the criminal law of England that whoever the man might be that was placed at our bar of justice, every opportunity should be afforded him to obtain a fair trial. He was happy to bear his testimony to the fair and honourable conduct of the Crown prosecutors generally, and to the just and impartial verdicts usually pronounced by the juries of the north of Ireland. But that was not precisely the question at present before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had taken good care not to answer the particular charge made by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns). The Crown no doubt had a right to put a man on his trial who it was believed had committed murder, and to take away his life if he were guilty. But he never heard, in his position of public prosecutor, that he should be at liberty to put a man on his trial for murder when he knew that he had not committed that crime. Now, what were the facts of the case? There were two men of the name of Humfreys, and one man of the name of Tate, charged with the crime of firing the shot that killed the person whose life was lost. If they had all been tried together, then the two witnesses whose names were on the back of the indictment, if produced, would have negatived the charge as against Tate, and, perhaps, have fastened it upon the two Humfreys. But that was not the course that was taken. The unfortunate man who was killed had in his dying moments, and possibly after he had received the consolations of religion, made a declaration—every word of which he (Mr. Whiteside) believed to be true—to the effect that Tate, the prisoner, was not guilty of the crime of murder. That declaration was taken before a magistrate of the Crown, and was returned by the magistrate to the Crown solicitor. That dying declaration distinctly stated that no shots would have been fired had it not been for the unfortunate circumstance of stones and bricks having been first thrown at the persons who were walking in the alleged procession. The deceased man, Murphy, it was said, knew the person of Tate perfectly well, and did not in the smallest particular inculpate him. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, stood in that House the sole representative of the Irish Executive. But that was not the right hon. Gentleman's fault. He (Mr. Whiteside) was sorry that the Attorney General for Ireland was not in that House, because he believed that a more amiable or honourable man did not exist, nor was there one for whom he had a higher respect. But it was the unfortunate position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that for the first time this quarter of a century there was no Attorney General for Ireland in the House to assist the Chief Secretary in his arduous labours. Neither he nor his hon. and learned Friend near him had any intention of attacking the right hon. Gentleman; but as his hon. and learned Friend represented the capital where those scenes occurred he thought it his duty to call attention to the subject. He (Mr. Whiteside) contended that, whoever might be the prosecutors on such an occasion, they were bound to have submitted the dying declaration of Murphy to the jury before whom Tate was tried. They were bound to do so by every principle of honour, and for the sake of humanity and justice. The position of the Crown prosecutor in such a case was not that of a man who was seeking a victory, but an officer of the State who was bound to see justice administered fairly and impartially to all Her Majesty's subjects. Any evidence which he thought made for the prisoner he was bound to submit to the jury. If he (Mr. Whiteside) were the prosecutor, and were in possession of such a dying declaration, he should feel himself bound by every principle of justice and fair play to lay it before the jury. The excuse of the Solicitor General was that the document did not tend to inculpate the prisoner—no, it tended only to exculpate him. That was a most unfortunate argument for his learned Friend to use. When a man was put on trial for his life the whole truth ought at least to be made known. He was deeply pained to hear from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) that the officers of the Crown had taken the course they did, not in haste but deliberately and after a consultation.

MR. CARDWELL

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. I stated that I had received no communication from my learned friends upon that part of the case.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he was glad to find that he was mistaken. With regard to the witnesses whose names were on the back of the indictment—who had been examined before the Grand Jury, and whose testimony went to exculpate Tate and inculpate the other two men—why were they not called at the trial? It appeared the counsel for the prisoners did not see their names on the back of the indictment, and so far they were excusable for not calling them. He agreed with his learned Friend that the counsel for the Crown were not bound to examine witnesses whose evidence would damage their own case; but they were bound—at least that had always been held the rule—to produce them that the other side might examine them. That was what he called English justice. The two witnesses who were kept back were of the same faith as the person who lost his life, and, therefore, were not likely to be biased in favour of the prisoner; but they were not examined, and the jury, contrary to the usual practice, gave the benefit of the doubt against the prisoner, and found him guilty of manslaughter. On the next day the two witnesses who had not been called, being wanted for another trial, gave their evidence clearly exculpating Tate, who had been found guilty of manslaughter the day before. The Judge, on hearing their testimony, remarked upon the new discovery, and said he should represent it to the Lord Lieutenant. But that was no answer to the charge of keeping back evidence that ought to have been produced. Surely the liberties and lives of the people of Ireland ought not to be dependent upon the opinions or will of the Lord Lieutenant, but upon the due administration of the law. He (Mr. Whiteside) now asked the Government whether they intended to punish that man Tate, who had been convicted only because important evidence was withheld, which, had it been produced, would have led to his immediate acquittal? He was assured that it was the universal opinion in the neighbourhood that the man was as innocent of having fired the shot as any Member present. He could not doubt that the Government would hasten to rectify the mistake that had been committed. In a former trial Mr. Justice FitzGerald had judiciously sentenced the processionists to the heaviest punishment; and he had very properly observed to the other party that they should also be punished for taking the law into their own hands. In respect to the point of challenging the jury, he (Mr. Whiteside) when prosecutor exercised his right of challenge on one occasion in Belfast. He was called on in that House to explain his conduct in that affair, and he hoped that he should never be impugned in such a subject again. But what was done in the case immediately under consideration? The right was exercised with so liberal a hand that the Crown prosecutors had actually set aside half of the panel; sixty were challenged out of the 120 that had attended. Of these twenty-four were jurors who had acted satisfactorily in the preceding cases. Now, if the Attorney General had good cause for this extensive exercise of his right to challenge he was fully justified in taking that course; but in a highly civilized country, when 120 respectable men attended to have it stated that sixty of them were deemed unfit to try a case was he thought one of the most alarming precedents in the administration of justice. He submitted that the points urged by his hon. and learned Friend had not been satisfactorily answered. He regretted that the two law officers for Ireland were not in the House. If they were likely to be here his hon. and learned Friend would have postponed the consideration of this question. If, however, he had postponed it until those learned functionaries were present he should have postponed it to the Greek Kalends. The right hon. Gentleman opposite conducted with the greatest courtesy and kindness the important business with which he was charged, and he trusted that he would ever be received with that courtesy and consideration in Ireland which were always proffered to a distinguished stranger. Indeed, it appeared to be a principle with the Liberal Government opposite, that as regarded the high offices of Lord Lieutenant and Secretary no native need apply. The office of Chief Secretary, however, could not be in more honourable hands than those of the right hon. Gentleman; and it was only to be desired that he would be soon relieved of his arduous labours in the legal business of the country by having the able assistance of the Attorney General for Ireland in that House to bear his portion of them.

Motion agreed to.