Mr. O'Connellwould take that opportunity of noticing a misrepresentation of his speech on the conduct of General Espartero towards the Spanish clergy, imputing to him the sentiment, that if the cruelties of which he had complained had been visited upon Carlist priests he should care nothing about the matter. He had reprobated the conduct of the present Spanish government equally as applied to the Carlist and Christino clergy as a religious persecution; but he had said that he should not have complained had any Carlist priests been punished according to law for their political offences. He would then proceed in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move for a return of the names, numbers, and descriptions of persons who had registered arms in the county of Down, Ireland. He was induced to make this motion in consequence of a most deplorable event that had occurred in that county, and which must equally be lamented by both sides of the House. He meant the murder of a young man of the name of M'Ardle—one of the most cruel atrocities ever committed. The circumstances of the case were these;—An exceedingly fine youth six feet three inches in stature, and proportionably well made, of most excellent conduct and temper, having been, on Christmas evening, with a friend called M'Kevron. at a public-house at Ballyrany, kept by a man named Copes, a quarrel arose between M'Kevron and an Orangeman, who was also one of the company. M'Ardle interfered, put an end to the quarrel, and took his friend out of the house. A person named Thomas Scott, one of the accused, left Cope's house about the same time as M'Kevron, and proceeded to another public-house three quarters of a mile off, where were assembled a number of young men who were armed, and had been practising with ball cartridge in the neighbourhood. These fellows, who had assumed the ridiculous name of "Yellow Tulips," were drinking in a barn, their arms being piled up in a corner, and when a messenger arrived they took their arms, proceeded to the house where M'Kevron had been, and demanded that he should be turned out. On being informed he was gone, they proceeded to search the house, firing into it, breaking all the doors and windows, and making an indiscriminate attack on such within as were known to be Roman Catholics. M'Ardle, however, escaped to a house 153 distant about a mile, and owned by a man named Ward. Thither they pursued him, and attacked the house where he had taken shelter. He again effected his escape, but before he got a mile further he was overtaken, lying near a lime-kiln, and shot dead. The trial for the murder took place at the last Down assizes, and the result was an immediate acquittal of the parties accused. He did not impute blame where blame did not lie; but that blame rested somewhere was perfectly evident. When the verdict was delivered there was a shout in court, "To hell with the Pope," the usual Orange cry. Although the Attorney-general prosecuted, and the judge charged for conviction strongly, the jury, without hesitation, acquitted the accused; another jury having convicted the very same men of a riot, on the very same occasion. There had been another murder since at Ballyrony, and he had received several letters requesting to know what the people were to do—whether they were to be obliged to protect themselves. He should not dwell one moment on these melancholy facts; but what he complained of was, that the magistrates did not at once prevent such a party from spending Christmas-day in firing ball-cartridges. It was altogether a most indecent occupation. He also complained of the shout in court immediately after the acquittal of the accused; but, without at all entering into these questions, he contented himself now with moving for the return above mentioned.
§ Lord Eliotwished to make a few observations with reference to the lamentable occurrence brought under the attention of the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was no light matter to impugn the verdict of a jury, especially when the life of a fellow-creature depended upon it; but he did feel himself bound to say, looking at the evidence adduced, the declarations made by the Attorney-general, and the charge of the learned judge, that he was at a loss to conceive on what grounds the prisoner had been acquitted. He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as well as the House, that his noble Friend at the head of the Irish government had felt the deepest pain on this occasion, not only with respect to the death of this unfortunate man, M'Ardle, but also as the occurrence indicated a continuance of that hateful spirit of party and religious animosity which the Irish 154 Government had hoped was rapidly beginning to subside. He also felt that the result in this case would tend to shake that confidence in the power of the law to punish crime, which it was so essential should prevail among all classes of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had done justice to the Government. So anxious was his noble Friend that the ends of justice should not be frustrated that he directed the principal law-officer of the Crown to proceed to the assizes and conduct the prosecution; and he believed he was justified in saying that his hon. and learned Friend had displayed all that ability, skill, and legal knowledge which so eminently characterised him, at the trial. If the ends of justice, therefore, had been frustrated, the guilt did not lie with the Irish Government. His only hope was, that the jury had taken up some mistaken view of the nature of the evidence brought forward. He entirely agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the practice of meeting in large numbers to practice ball-cartridge was extremely reprehensible; but he was not sufficiently acquainted with the law to say whether it were illegal. Of course, if it were so, it might be put down at once; but no doubt it was extremely reprehensible. With regard to the shout which had been uttered in court, he did not know in what way the judge could have interfered to prevent it. All he could do was to proclaim silence, which he had done immediately, and the cry was not repeated. He did not say so with any disrespect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or to those who professed his religion and politics, but he believed the fact was, the melancholy occurrence to which he had adverted arose out of a cry raised by a Roman Catholic in the room, "To hell with King William." At the same time, he greatly lamented that the same feeling prevailed to such an extent on both sides.
Mr. O'Connellfelt bound to say, that the noble Lord was right in stating, tha the murder originated in the exclamation "To hell with King William;" but M'Ardle had silenced the cry and sent the man who uttered it out of the house. The worst of the matter was, that the Orangemen were armed with deadly weapons, while the Catholics were not. He did not know whether they would remain so.
§ Lord Eliotwished further to state, as 155 some objection had been taken to the jury, as entirely composed of Protestants, that the counsel employed by the next of kin made no objection to them whatever when empannelled.
§ Lord Eliothad seen the objection to which he had alluded in a newspaper. He had no objection to the motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ The Speaker, however, intimated that it was irregular to bring on such a motion by way of amendment to his leaving the chair.
§ Motion withdrawn, to be renewed after the House should have resumed.
§ The House resolved itself into a Committee of