§ Mr. Shawbrought up the Report of the Examiners into the validity of the sureties in the Petition against the return for the city of Dublin, and moved, that the House should extend the time for perfecting the sureties till Wednesday next.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the Report had been made on Monday last: this was Friday: why had the Report not been brought up before? The fourteen days allowed by the Act for perfecting the sureties were now expired. Yes; the petition was presented on the 6th of the month, and this was the 20th. It was surely too late for the hon. Member to make any such Motion. The Report was made on Monday. Why was it not brought up on Tuesday? Why not, at any rate, on Wednesday? No; instead of this, the hon. Member kept it quietly in his pocket, all the time that he was doing his best to prevent the postponement of the Ballot. If it were not his own case, he should at greater length, and more warmly call upon the House not to sanction such an attempt as this evidently was; but it being his own case, he should content himself with simply entreating the House, to consider the whole of the circumstances, to ask themselves why it was the Report had been delayed till this day, and then to put it to themselves, whether they could, consistently with their duty to the public, or to themselves, as individual Members of the House, sanction the proposition of the hon. and learned Member.
§ Mr. Shawsaid, the sureties in the second and longer petition had been perfected; and the delay in reference to the third, and short petition, was solely owing to the opinion of the Examiners, that an extension of time was necessary to perfect the securities in it. He was, however, quite in the hands of the House.
§ Motion withdrawn.
§ Mr. Shawrequested an opportunity of presenting another Petition seriously affecting the character of an individual. It was from Mr. Baker, the agent for the Dublin petitions, who felt that he owed it as a duty to himself respectfully to submit an answer to the serious charge brought against him a few days ago. The hon. Member for Dublin had then stated that he had been misled and deceived by the agent who had made affidavit to the facts contained in his petition in reply. While he (Mr. Shaw) admitted at once the respect belonging to the assertion of a Member in his place—that it was equivalent to words spoken under the sanction of an oath; yet where the circumstances affected the character of a third person the House would not be guilty of so glaring an injustice as to refuse that third person the means of justification.
Mr. O'Connellobjected, in point of form to the receiving of any affidavit, unless it could be shown how the adverse party could answer it by a counter affidavit.
§ Mr. ShawMr. Baker asserted that on the 11th instant, in company with a client, and upon other business, he went to the office of Sir Robert Sidney, the agent for the sitting Member for Dublin; there he saw Mr. O'Connell, who desired Sir Robert Sidney to give Mr. Baker a notice that he was prepared to exchange a list of witnesses. When Mr. Baker was preparing to leave the office, Sir Robert Sidney asked, jokingly, "Do you mean to treat us with all the petitions?" The petitioner's answer was, "I do not know whether I do or not;" but fearing he might be misunderstood, he went back and addressed these words to Sir Robert Sidney and Mr. O'Connell: "I think it fair to tell you that if I complete the recognizances on the third petition (that of the 6th of March), I will let go the other; but it all depends upon your not turning me round upon a point of form." To prevent all mistake, he repeated these words a second time, and Sir Robert 11 Sidney remarked, "To be sure, I understand you fully: you mean to make yourself secure." Nothing more occurred until the Saturday following, when Mr. Baker posted a notice, to guard himself against all chance of being turned round, slating, that on Wednesday he would proceed with the securities upon the first petition. On Monday he appeared before the Examiners, in order to perfect the securities on the second petition, and was taken by surprise by affidavits produced by Mr. O'Connell, to invalidate one of the securities. As he was not prepared with contrary evidence, the Examiners agreed to make a Report to the House for further time to the petitioners. The notice having been posted on the preceding Saturday, Mr. Baker appeared again before the Examiners on Wednesday, and then, for the first time, Mr. O'Connell brought forward the charge that a fraud had been practised upon him. The petitioner, on the other hand, asserted most positively that he never had used any other terms respecting the abandonment of a petition but those he had set forth. He added that Mr. O'Connell, on Monday, applied to the Examiners for a certificate that the notice of Saturday was not posted in time, in order that the agent might not be able to proceed on the first petition. This fact would be stated by Mr. Rose, the officer of the House. On Monday, when the Examiners postponed the petition on the point of form, Mr. Baker expressly informed them that he meant to proceed with the perfecting of the securities on the other petition. The petitioner added that he felt it extremely hard to be thus accused of practising a fraud and a deception, and prayed the House to grant an inquiry, which, in fact, he challenged. The facts he (Mr. Shaw) had thus detailed from the petition, were sworn to in an affidavit to which he would only refer, entreating the House to suspend its judgment until the facts had been clearly ascertained.
Mr. O'ConnellIf this affidavit were in a shape in which I could prosecute it for perjury I would do so at once. There were four persons present on the occasion alluded to. One of them was a young Gentleman, a client, of the name of Mathison, who came in on business to the office when the conversation commenced. The agent for the petitioner came in, and stated his willingness to abandon the pe- 12 tition in question, but he did not state anything that made any distinct impression on his mind on the subject. But as he was going away, Mr. Mathison having gone, he came back, and in the presence of four witnesses, emphatically gave notice to him, and his colleague, Mr. Ruthven, that he might disembarrass or disengage (the only doubt on the subject, is as to which word he used)—our minds altogether of the petition in question, for they certainly would not proceed upon it, There were four persons present when this was said, and those four were ready to prove, in any court of justice, the truth of what, he now stated. The third petition is signed by five persons, and there were only four names to the other two petitions—the fifth of those persons had not been served with notice, for I did not notice that the third was only signed by three persons, and I sent notice to Dublin only as to the four. The object of the petitioners is, to make a point before the Committee, in order that I may not have a Commission, because I have not served the parties with notice. I desire inquiry, and inquiry under the sanction of an oath. Let the hon. and learned Recorder, when he leaves this room, lay a wager, that if he put this question in the stage of a declaration on the file, and leave it to the verdict of twelve men, he will not be defeated. There is one circumstance which the hon. and learned Recorder has mentioned, and only one which I have reason to contradict, and that is this false statement. He said, that on Monday evening I went to the examiner and inquired whether he had posted on the preceding Saturday the list. When I found it repeated that they would not proceed upon the two petitions—when I found a notice in the hall upon the subject, having written to Dublin that day to stop the witnesses, and having given up going to any agent and holding a consultation, I came down to the House, and when I found that notice posted up, I said this must be some trick, and long before coming into the House I met my friend, Sergeant Perrin, who advised me not to bring the matter before the House. Sergeant Perrin accompanied me to the Clerk of Recognizances, and I inquired how it happened that, after Mr. Baker had stated so and so, he had posted up the notice. The clerk said it was not Mr. Baker who had done it, but that he himself, finding the recognizance in the 13 office, had done so. I did not make any other inquiry of Mr. Baker. I went to ascertain how, after he had told me that the notice should not be posted up, it had been posted. These are the facts of the case; and I repeat, that let me have my witnesses in any court of justice, before any criminal tribunal, I shall convince it of the truth of them. The facts are recent, and cannot have escaped the recollection of the witnesses.
Mr. Ruthvenentirely concurred in the statement of his hon. colleague. His recollection was recent and most distinct, and he believed that Sir Robert Sidney had made a memorandum to the same effect. He complained that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Shaw) had stated some matters upon his own knowledge not contained in the petition.
Petition laid upon the Table.