HC Deb 26 June 1835 vol 28 cc1311-9
Colonel Perceval

rose and said, if he could now prevail on the House to lend him its attention for a few moments, he should endeavour to show that he was not deserving of that severe censure which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had recently endeavoured to cast on him, as well by the imputation of a discovered suppression of truth, as by the severe manner in which the denunciation was delivered. On the occasion referred to, his astonishment was indescribable when he heard the hon. and learned Gentleman get up and tax him with having withheld what he (Mr. O'Connell) stated to be a fact, and in relation to which he, in his utter astonishment, declared that if it were a fact, as the learned Gentleman declared it to be, that was the first time he had ever heard of it. The hon. and learned Member charged him with the concealment of what he called a fact, namely, that Mr. Hudson had had bills of indictment sent up against him before a Dublin Grand Jury, whose political bias was well known to be in accordance with his own views, and, added the learned Gentleman, "what will the House think when I tell them, that Mr. Hudson was acquitted by a Grand Jury such as those described? That all the witnesses who had given their evidence before the Committee in London, and who were believed where they were not known, when they were sent back to Dublin, where their characters were known—the wretches! were disbelieved even by an Orange Grand Jury." Those were the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. On hearing them his astonishment was so great, that he began to doubt his own recollection. He had felt astonished at the time that Mr. Hudson should not have been brought before the public after the Report of the Committee, and therefore the House might judge of his surprise when the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward a detailed statement on the subject with all the solemnity which he was in the habit of drawing on in that House. He was now prepared to prove that the very reverse of the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was throughout and in all parts correct. There were no bills of indictment whatever sent up against Mr. Hudson before a Grand Jury of the city or of the county of Dublin. In fact, there was no prosecution whatever instituted against Mr. Hudson arising out of the proceedings of any Committee of that House. No witnesses were examined or discredited in the case by the Dublin Grand Jury. What must now be the feelings of the hon. and learned Gentleman when the hon. Member recollected how he had endeavoured to put him down on the occasion. Some hon. Members, but not many, on the other side of the House had interrupted him with exclamations and sneers—the hon. Member for Staffordshire was one—and indeed he was not much surprised at the circumstance, after the solemn accusation of the hon. and learned Member, charging him with having been guilty of a suppressio veri. Now, in respect of every statement made with regard to Mr. Hudson, he held in his hand certificates from the proper officers which completely settled the question, but which he did not know whether he was at liberty to read, as they were not on the Table of the House. One of the papers came from the Clerk of the Peace of the city of Dublin, and the other from Mr. Bourne, Deputy Clerk of the Crown for the county. These documents stated, that search having been made among the Pleas of the Crown in both city and county, it appeared that there were not any bills of indictment for bribery, or any other offence, arising out of the Dublin Election of 1831, preferred against Mr. Hudson. The certificates were dated the 18th June, 1835, and authenticated by the signatures of the parties. He now felt that so far as the detailed statements and assertions of the hon. and learned Member went, and inasmuch as they imputed to him the guilt of a suppressio veri, he had given satisfactory proof that the hon. and learned Gentleman's declarations were unfounded, and that he had not suppressed the truth. The whole statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as regarded Mr. Hudson, fell to the ground, and was not sustained by fact. When the hon. and learned Member was endeavouring to bring the feelings of the House to bear against him—and if he had been guilty of the offence laid to his charge well and justly should he have merited its indignation—the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that he owed Mr. Hudson no compliment, for he had refused to act as counsel for him at the Dublin election. That was the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. Without any application on his part he had re- ceived a letter from Mr. Edward Maguire, an agent of the hon. and learned Gentleman's opponents at the Dublin election, stating that the writer had observed Mr. O'Connell was reported to have said, that he was a gratuitous defender of Mr. Hudson, who had not behaved well to him, as he had refused to be one of his counsel at the last Dublin election.—[Mr. O'Connell: No; at the commission on the Dublin election.]—Be it so. The writer went on to say, that his situation as agent at the late Dublin election enabled him to state, that Mr. Hudson did act as one of Mr. O'Connell's counsel at that election; and in further illustration—said Mr. Maguire—of this gratuitous defence, which was a genuine quid pro quo, it may be as well to add, that at the present inquiry before the Commissioners in Dublin, Mr. Hudson did also appear as counsel for Mr. O'Connell, and, by a strange coincidence, on the day after Mr. O'Connell himself ceased to attend. The concluding paragraph of the letter stated—"Should these facts bear Mr. O'Connell out in his denial of any connexion with the gentleman in question, they will be useless, but if not, you are at liberty to use them as you think proper." He was not aware that he had ever seen the gentleman who wrote this letter; he certainly had no acquaintance whatever with him, but he felt obliged to the writer for sending him the information without any application on his part. The letter did him no service in his defence against the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge, but it must have this effect at all events—to make hon. Members pause before they believed altogether that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not labouring under some mistake when he said he had no connexion with Hudson, that gentleman having refused to act as counsel for him. Whether Mr. Hudson refused or not, it appeared he did, and does act as counsel for the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had stated the facts of the case as far as regarded himself—he had shown that he was not guilty of suppressing the truth, or of making use of information in his possession against Mr. Hudson, while he refused that individual the benefit of exculpatory information, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman assumed him to be cognizant. The House would decide between the hon. and learned Gentleman and himself, which had adhered to truth, and which had not.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that the hon. and gallant Member's speech looked very like an aspersion on the characters of others—it certainly could not be called a defence f his own, for the alleged attack had never been made. He had said on the occasion referred to, and said distinctly, that he hoped and believed the hon. Member for Sligo was ignorant of the circumstance of an indictment having been preferred and ignored, and he certainly did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of wilfully suppressing any fact. At the same time, after the hon. Member's statement tonight, he was not sure that he was not ailed on to say, that he thought Mr. Hudson ill-treated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in keeping from the House even now, the real facts of the case; and further, that some members of Mr. Hudson's own profession ought to have been more candid than they were with respect to the transaction. He did speak of an indictment having been preferred before a favourable Grand Jury—he did state that witnesses were examined, and that the Bill was ignored. He stated that he believed that Mr. Hudson was by name included in the Bill. But, before going further on this point, he had to fight the hon. and gallant Member in a sort of bye battle; it was true he had also stated, that he had reason to be displeased with Mr. Hudson, for although the Committee which acted for him had sent Mr. Hudson one day to argue a point, yet he stated, and truly, that Mr. Hudson refused to appear before the Commission. This was perfectly true. He had endeavoured to prevail on Mr. Hudson to attend the Commission for him, but he totally refused to do so. The day after he left town, a Mr. Hutton—not Mr. Hudson—did attend the Commission, and had attended it ever since as his counsel.—[Colonel Perceval: Mr. Maguire says Mr. Hudson attended.]—Mr. Maguire was mistaken. Mr. Hutton had attended every day, and was his retained, feed counsel—the only counsel that received a shilling from him—and Mr. Hutton was going on in his attendance. He now came back to the indictments. Let the House recollect the phillipic which the hon. and gallant Member, himself so sensitive, delivered against a young man rising in his profession, and the odium he had endeavoured to excite against Mr. Hudson. The hon. Gentleman said, that Mr. Hudson was the law adviser of the Castle; he was no such thing; he acted as an assistant to the Attorney-General, and issued his cases, but was not in any way connected with the Government. The present was a second attempt to blacken the character of Mr. Hudson. He should be able to defeat it. He could refer to some documents on the subject; and if the hon. Gentleman had condescended to inform him of the course he was about to take tonight, he would have been provided with more. He thought the hon. and gallant Member would get no great credit from his second exhibition. How did the case really stand? The House ordered the Attorney-General of the day to prosecute certain parties against whom the Committee on the Dublin election of 1831 reported; there was a division on the subject, and he (Mr. O'Connell) voted for the prosecution. No great intimacy subsisted between him and the then Attorney-General, who had been kind enough to prosecute himself. He found that the prosecution took place, not in 1831 (to which the hon. Gentleman's certificates were confined), but in January, 1832, when bills were preferred against eight or ten individuals, and prepared against the rest of the parties. Of course bills were sent up in the case of the persons against whom there was the strongest evidence; he could mention their names:—They were T. Gallagher, H. W. Sharman, W. Kertland, W. Hincks, R. Hitchcock, and T. Kennedy. Six witnesses who had been examined by the Committee, were sent before the Grand Jury, and there were eight other witnesses. He had the certificate of the same Mr. Bourne as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had quoted, and it authenticated the facts which he now stated. Bills against Mr. Hudson, Mr. Murphy, and others, were prepared, and would have gone up to the Grand Jury, if those already preferred had been found. The Grand Jury examined the witnesses, and upon their testimony ignored the bills. Who was the foreman of the Grand Jury that thus ignored the bills? Sir Robert Shaw, father of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Would the hon. and gallant Member tell him that Mr. Black-burne, the Attorney-General, did not do his duty, and send up the strongest case to the Grand Jury first. If he kept back a strong case, and sent up a weak one, Mr. Blackburne deserved to be impeached, and the noble Lord, who was the Secre- tary for Ireland at the time, was scarcely less culpable, but the thing was impossible; of course the strongest case was sent to the Grand Jury in the first instance. He was here the advocate of the noble Lord. He repeated that the bills were ignored. He was sorry that he had not by him at present, letters descriptive of the feeling that manifested itself in court on the occasion, and the general congratulations received by Mr. Hudson, whom he believed to have been included in the bills of indictment, as in point of fact he was substantially, though not by name. Was that all? Here was a curious fact; the bills were thrown out on the 9th January, and a Dublin harmonic society, of which Mr. Hudson was secretary, took advantage of the circumstance to invite that gentleman to dinner. The Lord Mayor presided at the entertainment, the Duke of Leinster was on his right hand, the Attorney-General on his left, and Mr. Hudson's health was given by the Attorney-General. He (Mr. O'Connell) had the learned gentleman's speech on the occasion. Where, then, did you find Mr. Hudson on the 2nd of February, about three weeks after the prosecution? At a dinner toasted and feasted, and feasted and toasted by the Attorney-General who had preferred the bills. He did not charge the hon. and gallant Member with a suppression of the truth; on the contrary, he distinctly said he hoped the hon. Member was ignorant of the facts. He now asked, did the hon. Gentleman never hear of any bills being preferred for matter in his speech on a former occasion, nor in his speech tonight had he mentioned it. Be that as it might, he gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman joy on his second attack on Mr. Hudson. Had the hon. Gentleman, who had so much feeling for himself, no feeling for Mr. Hudson, a young man, struggling in (his profession, with the world before him? He might here observe, that gentlemen like Mr. Hudson had great difficulties to contend with. There was infinitely more rancour exhibited in Ireland against Protestant barristers of liberal opinions than existed even in the case of Catholic agitators. It would have been candid in the hon. and gallant Member if he had said that bills of indictment were sent up against several individuals, though not against Mr. Hudson; but even now the hon. and gallant Member kept back the fact of those bills having been preferred and ignored. The hon. Member accused him of making insinuations against his character. He insinuated nothing, but he thought that the hon. Gentleman was far from having vindicated himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman here quoted a letter from Mr. Sergeant Woulfe, to show that the strongest cases had been selected for prosecution in the first instance, and that the bills having been ignored in those cases, it would have been absurd to have proceeded with others which were weaker. He then recapitulated the circumstances of the ignoring of the bills, and asked whether he was wrong, having heard the shout of congratulation, and finding Mr. Hudson toasted and feasted by the Attorney-General shortly after the failure of the prosecution—was he not justified in supposing that the prosecution included that gentleman, as substantially it did, and had entirely failed? Was the hon. and gallant Officer asleep? Did not he and his friends look with a vigilant eye, to see that the orders of the House of Commons had been carried into effect, and that the prosecution was urged as far as it would go? He should have been much more accurate in his particulars if he had been prepared on the subject; still, however, he thought his statement was substantially borne out by facts. He must repeat that he thought it rather unfeeling, on the part of the hon. and gallant Officer, to keep back the fact of indictments, having been preferred, although not against Mr. Hudson, yet against other parties with reference to whom the evidence was stronger. He would now leave the matter in the hands of the House; he trusted that his vindication of Mr. Hudson had been complete, and that the character of that gentleman remained without stain.

[Mr. Shaw

rose, and was about to address the House, when an hon. Member on the Opposition side suggested that the House should now proceed with the business upon the paper.]

Mr. Ward

rose to order. The House had, in courtesy to the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, allowed him to vindicate himself from a personal charge, and, naturally enough, had afterwards listened to the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He submitted, however, that as there was now no question before the House, the right hon. Gentleman was out of order in addressing it.

The Speaker

said, that an opportunity having been afforded to the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, to make the observations which he felt it necessary to offer to the House, and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin having been heard in reply, it certainly would be inconvenient to continue the conversation., At the same time, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman wished merely to state a fact, the House would, perhaps, indulge him, with a hearing.

Mr. Shaw

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had charged him with having, when the subject was last before the House, suppressed a fact of which he (Mr. Shaw) was cognizant. Now, upon that occasion he, speaking not positively, but to the best of his belief, made a statement of facts which had, from the explanation given that night, turned out to be precisely accurate. After the hon. and learned Member for Dublin charged his hon. and gallant Friend with the suppression of the fact that Mr. Hudson had been indicted, and that the indictment had failed, he (Mr. Shaw) stood up and stated that he believed bills had been preferred against some of the parties, but that no bill had been presented against Mr. Hudson; and such turned out to be the fact. Now, as to the reason why no bill was preferred against Mr. Hudson, he wished to say nothing that could operate injuriously to that gentleman, and, therefore, would speak with the utmost delicacy; but the fact was, that the Government of that day was favourably disposed towards the unseated Members in whose interest Mr. Hudson had acted; and, as those who were considered the Representatives of the opposite party felt no desire to prosecute, the matter was allowed to drop. The circumstance of Mr. Hudson having escaped prosecution, did not, however, fail to attract considerable attention, and he was frequently requested to bring the subject under the notice of the House, but he had uniformly refused to do so. The general understanding was, that as regarded Mr. Hudson, the matter was allowed to drop by the Government, and the less the subject was pressed, as regarded Mr. Hudson, the better. With respect to the names of Hutton and Hudson—

Sir John Hobhouse

rose to order. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate, that he had something to say in his own vindication, and upon that ground the House had listened to him. The right hon. Gentleman was now proceeding further, and by saying, that the less this matter was pressed, the better it would be for Mr. Hudson, he would call up other hon. Members to reply to that insinuation. The House had already granted sufficient indulgence to the right hon. Gentleman; and if he persevered, the consequence would be that the hon. and learned Member on his right (Mr. O'Connell) would claim to make a reply, and thus the important Motion that was about to be brought on would be interrupted.

Subject dropped.