THE IRISH GOVERNMENT AND MR. O'CONNELL. (Hansard, 16 February 1831)

Mr. Stanley

addressed the House in the following terms:—I shall avail myself, Mr. Speaker, of this opportunity to give the House more full and explicit information than I was able, on a former day, to give a noble Lord who put a question to me regarding certain proceedings which have recently taken place in Dublin. It will be in the recollection of many Gentlemen, that the trial of Mr. O'Connell and his associates only took place in Dublin on the morning of Saturday last, and that a question was put to me by a noble Lord, on the evening of Monday, as to whether any terms had been entered into with that Gentleman by the Government—whether any compromise had been made with him—and as to whether the law would be permitted to take its course against him, now that he had at length admitted that he had violated it. I appeal to the recollection of the House, whether the terms of which I made use in answering that question were not as follow:—"That no terms whatever had either been offered to, or made with, Mr. O'Connell; that in consequence of the exertions of Mr. O'Connell's friends, Mr. O'Connell had been informed, that he had placed himself and the country in such a situation as rendered it impossible for the Government, consistently with its dignity, to recede from the position which it had taken against him—that Mr. O'Connell must therefore act as he thought most expedient for himself—that he must be the best judge of what his own conduct ought to be—and that it was the unalterable determination of the law-officers in Ireland, to let the law take its course against him." At the time I used those expressions, I had only received a letter containing the information of his trial and of his conviction. I have received this morning a letter from the Attorney General of Ireland, containing a more detailed account of those transactions; and as I am anxious to avoid any misrepresentation, and indeed to disabuse the public mind from any attempt at misrepresentation of those transactions, I will, for the sake 610 of corroborating the expressions which I formerly made use of, read the statement made to me by the Attorney General for Ireland, even though it be contained in a private letter. I am willing to read the whole of the letter, if the House require it. It contains nothing of particular importance, and therefore an extract from it will, perhaps, do quite as well. I must, however, promise, by way of explanation of it, one circumstance, which I have no doubt is in the recollection of the House. The House is aware that the original indictment against Mr. O'Connell and his associates consisted of a great variety of counts, of which the first fourteen charged the defendants with having repeatedly held illegal assemblies, in violation of the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant; and the last sixteen charged them with having conspired together to hold such illegal meetings. To the first fourteen counts Mr. O'Connell demurred—to the last sixteen he put in a plea of Not Guilty. I believe—and if I am wrong in that belief I know that I shall be corrected by some of the learned Gentlemen around me,—I believe that the effect of Mr. O'Connell's demurring to the first fourteen counts, if the point of law were decided against him, would be, that judgment would pass against him without the intervention of a Jury. Mr. O'Connell subsequently appearing not to have so favourable an opinion of the law of his case as he had originally, argued, that he was entitled to withdraw his demurrer against the first fourteen counts, and to plead to them that he was Not Guilty. To this the Court of King's Bench, after some debate, assented, and the trial was fixed, on the application of the Attorney General, who wished the earliest possible day to be appointed for it, on Thursday, the 17th instant. Mr. O'Connell having made two subsequent applications—I do not say for the; mere purpose of delay, though they certainly produced delay,—saying, on the first application, to the officer who was to strike the Jury, that though he had had twenty-four hours' notice of his intention to strike the panel, be had not had one clear day's notice of it, and insisting, on his second application, after the officer had nominated forty-eight jurors, who were afterwards to be reduced to twenty-four, by each party striking out twelve, that he ought to have time to the next day to deliberate on the persons whom he 611 should object to and the Sheriff having yielded to both his applications, it became impossible, as a Special Jury must be summoned six clear days previously to the day of trial before a fine for non-attendance could be imposed upon them,—it became impossible, I say, for the Attorney General to bring on the trial on the 17th, the day originally appointed for it. I now come to the Attorney General's own words; and if any Gentleman requires it, I have no objection, though I do not think it material, to read the whole letter. "I therefore on Friday gave him notice, that I would on the next day apply to the Court to fix a later day for the trial than the 17th this led to a verbal message from Mr. O'Connell to me, through the Crown solicitor, to request that I would postpone the trial to the next Term. To this I answered, that any communication to me must be in writing. Accordingly, he wrote to me on Friday evening, and on Saturday morning received a peremptory refusal. It was not difficult to collect from all this, that O'Connell never would encounter a Jury; and, to say the truth, I was, for some days, convinced that he would plead guilty rather than do so. I therefore, on Saturday, spoke to his counsel, and told him, that as to time or terms, none would be granted, but that, as I must have had judgment against O'Connell and his associates had the demurrers been argued on the fourteen counts of the indictment, and as in that case I should most certainly have entered a noli prosequi on the other counts, which were in their nature subsidiary to the others. I was willing to be satisfied with a conviction ensuring me the same extent of advantage that I felt the King's Bench had deprived me of. In ten minutes after I had made this offer it was acceded to, and in half an hour after, made the rule of the Court, Mr. Green and Mr. Perrin having previously appeared for the other traversers. "Such is the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, and I think that the House will agree with me, that it completely bears me out in the assertion which I made on a former evening, that the Government had entered into no negotiation with Mr. O'Connell; that it had not made any compromise, or even the slightest shadow of any compromise, with Mr. O'Connell; and that it had expressed its unalterable determination to be, that let Mr. O'Connell 612 act as he pleased, judgment should be pressed against him. The Crown having thus obtained, "without the slightest compromise, a conviction against Mr. O'Connell and his associates on the first fourteen counts of the indictment, did not think it right to proceed against them on the last sixteen counts, which charged them with a conspiracy. In adopting that course of procedure, the Crown acted upon the lenient principle, adopted by ordinary prosecutors at the ordinary assizes; and I am of opinion, that if such lenity be advisable towards the culprits at ordinary assizes, it is still more advisable and expedient when exhibited towards a political opponent. Indeed, I am sure that if the Crown had persevered in its original intention of going to the Jury on the last sixteen counts of the indictment, it would have given to the transaction an appearance, not of justice, but of persecution. In pursuing the course which it has done, the Crown has treated Mr. O'Connell as it would have treated any other individual—it has vindicated the outraged law; and, by so doing, has inspired the discontented with awe, and the well-affected with confidence. It has procured a verdict against Mr. O'Connell, and it will, undoubtedly, call him up to receive judgment upon it. I only mention these circumstances to prevent it from being said in any quarter, either on this or on the other side of the Channel, that the Government either offered terms to, or made terms with, Mr. O'Connell. I put it to the House, I put it to every man of plain, straight-forward common sense, whether by any quibble it can be said that the written communication between Mr. O'Connell and the Attorney General was offering terms. I have now mentioned all the facts connected with these transactions, and I appeal to the House, whether I am not fully borne out by them in the statement which I originally made to the House,—that not any, the slightest compromise has been made by the Irish Government with Mr. O'Connell, to induce him to plead guilty to the first fourteen counts of the indictment preferred against him.