HC Deb 15 July 1844 vol 76 cc830-71
Mr. Wyse

rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire, in accordance with the prayer of the petition presented on the 17th of June, into the facts connected with the formation of the special jury in the case of "The Queen, at the prosecution of the Attorney General, v. Daniel O'Connell and others." The hon. Member, after presenting various petitions on the subject, proceeded to say, that in submitting this Motion to the House, he came forward upon no insufficient ground, at no improper period, and upon a subject in which he believed every part of the empire felt an interest. He said he came forward on no insufficient ground, for he had presented to that House on the 21st of March petitions signed by 750,000 inhabitants of Ireland, praying for an immediate inquiry into the circumstances of this case; and when to that were added the petitions he had presented that evening, signed by not less than 26,000 persons, reciting the same prayer (and he understood that others were now on their passage), the petition which was presented from the solicitor for the traversers, important from the minuteness of the circumstances it detailed, and the petition he had before referred to, not from men connected with Repeal Associations, but signed by many who were in direct hostility to Repeal, who from their long acquaintance with Ireland, their high rank and ancient descent, might be said to represent the aristocratic feeling of that country, he thought it would be admitted that he had some claim to their attention. He had not come forward at an improper time. During the entire time that this subject was agitated in Ireland, in the courts of justice or the assemblies of the people, he had abstained from mentioning it; and now, whilst the question was pending in the other House of Parliament, he would not have touched upon the subject, were he not convinced that what he said that evening was not to be precluded by the discussions and deliberations of the other House. He trusted he should be able to show that it was a totally distinct portion of the subject, and in no degree anticipated or attempted to influence the opinions of the other House of Parliament; and as to the subject itself, surely there never was one which demanded more the attention of that House. He was no lawyer, and yet this subject was full of legal details. He had not had the advantage of being personally present at the transactions to which he should allude, and least of all, after the eminent men who had discussed this subject could he claim any share of their attention which in other instances he might have demanded; but he was an Irish Catholic and represented an Irish Catholic constituency, and he could not but feel in common with the great mass of his fellow-countrymen a deep interest in this trial. He could not but feel that Mr. O'Connell was an eminent man in the age in which he lived—that it was to his exertions that millions of his fellow-countrymen were indebted for throwing open the gates of the constitution, and to which he owed the power of then addressing them. But that was not all; if Mr. O'Connell was an Irishman, he (Mr. Wyse) must remember also that he was a Catholic, and that he had had no Catholic on the jury; that he was an Irishman, and was judged by a tribunal which, as they had heard in that House, in England with an English jury and an English judge, he would not have been exposed to. Upon these grounds he thought he had a right to demand their attention. But he argued it on broader grounds. He knew that this was a question which, however they might think it was at the present confined to Ireland, must sooner or later advance to themselves. It was one to which sooner or later a remedy must be applied. The worst evils to a country were those which crept in under the sanction of justice, which were furtively consigned to the Statute Book. We lived in days in which to practise open tyranny was impossible—when Governments were too prudent to be violent—when they could not assault, but might undermine the Constitution. It was from those intruments to which the people looked for protection that such evils must be apprehended. Give him a people where they had a free discussion, under the ægis of protecting laws, and he cared not what administration or what legislature they had; sooner or later the people would have the means of vindicating their rights and replacing themselves in that constitutional position of which they had been deprived; but take from them that right of free discussion, and of the only guarantee of that—a fair tribunal for the trial of causes, and then all the advantages of the balance of the powers of the constitution would be at an end, and those rights would be merely temporary and provisional. He would limit himself in a great degree to facts—those facts had been admitted, and it was upon them that he must look to the House for redress. If he could show that there were grounds for inquiry, then there was a sufficient reason for him to demand a Committee. They were in the character of a grand jury—an indictment was prepared, and it was for him to show, as there was a difference of opinion between parties on one side and on the other, that there was ground for maintaining the opinion which he entertained. It had been the object of the Government for many years to neutralise the question of Repeal of the Union. It was considered a matter of importance either to exorcise it from the country or to crush it—either to persuade the gentry away from it or expel it by main force. There were many who looked upon it as a magnificent impossibility, others who regarded it as a probable event. Some argued that it would be good if it were carried, others thought not only that it could not be carried, but that if it were it would be fraught with danger and evil to Ireland. Those who were opposed to Repeal on abstract principles looked upon it generally in an English point of view; whilst Irishmen might be pardoned for indulging in occasional dreams of nationality, however little prospect there might be of realizing them. But there was another party who looked upon it as treason against the fundamental laws of the Constitution. Each of those parties was necessarily guided by their several opinions in attempting to get rid of the question. Those who looked upon it as a national vanity, as one of those questions that must occasionally arise in the history of all nations, were not disposed to task it too severely, but rather looked upon it as embracing and expressing the opinions of a great portion of the people upon grievances which they actually felt, than as a question which had in itself vitality, or likely to be carried. They considered that if proper redress were afforded, all these untoward manifestations would necessarily disappear, and that by a series of good measures and various important alterations in the policy of the country the desire for Repeal might be allayed, if not altogether subdued, and they indulged the hope that the time would come when it would entirely disappear from the country. But there was another party, who looked upon it as an integral and serious measure—who, coming into power, could not adopt the measures of their predecessors, and who felt themselves obliged to take measures which would completely crush Repeal by violent means, or recur to fraud, if it could not be otherwise effected. To use force to repress it—to use violent means, was out of the question. What were the means by which that must be done? Would it be by coming to that House for a Coercion Bill—for a Bill to make the discussion of Repeal treason against the Crown and the security of the realm? If by any circumstances such a Bill could have been converted into a law it would have merely shifted the discussion of Repeal to another question. It would not have extinguished it, but would have made it a question of repealing that Act which prevented their discussing the subject itself. They were all familiar with the meetings that took place during the last Session, and the appeals that were made to the Government in that House on the subject. By late evidence it appeared that, quiet as the Government seemed to be, they were not altogether inattentive to it. There was an obvious course open to them—that of attacking the meeting which Mr. O'Connell had summoned of the General Convention to be held in Dublin to consider a plan for the renewed action of the Irish Parliament. That body was to be composed of a number of members summoned from every part of Ireland, though undoubtedly not on the ground or in the form of a Parliament or a delegation in direct opposition to the Convention Act. It was thought that the Government at that period—at the close of last Session—would have waited for the assembling of that Convention, and, had they done so, there might perhaps have been less ground of complaint, inasmuch as it would have been in direct violation of an Act of Parliament. But the Session had not long closed when the Government anticipated the meeting which was to be held in November, and immediately attacked the first meeting which was to be held, viz., the meeting at Clontarf, near Dublin; but not content with attempting to suppress that meeting they proceeded to those prosecutions which formed the subject of this inquiry. Whether the Government upon that occasion were too late or too soon—whether they had acted with hesitation or with prudence—whether it were a wise course to risk, at so late a period, the chance of a collision with an excited people—or whether it would not have been sufficient for this purpose to have instituted the prosecution without noticing the meeting, it was not his intention at present to discuss. But before that House had been placed evidence, clear at least in his mind, that it was a sudden and unforeseen act on the part of the Government, arising, by their own showing, out of certain expressions that were used at that hour of the day, which could not be entertained as anything like a serious ground of apprehension by those who knew from whom the placard in which those expressions appeared proceeded, and what was the general feeling in the country about the author. It did appear to the country at large most improper that the meeting to which he alluded, and which was the last of a series, should be chosen for interference on the part of the Government. It was now apparent that there had all along been an intention on the part of the Government to indict these parties for conspiracy; and there seeming tranquility had, in a great measure, induced the crime which the Government afterwards sought to punish. His impression was that there had been an opinion on the part of the Government that a treasonable correspondence was carried on between certain members of the Repeal Association and the Government of America. It was, he believed, pretty generally known now that one individual gave information to the Government to the effect that a treasonable correspondence was carried on between Mr. Steele on one side, and the son of Mr. Tyler, the President of the United States, on the other. The impression he entertained was confirmed by the language which had been used by the Attorney-General for Ireland at the commencement of the trials. The first bill of indictment had scarcely been placed before the Court when the Attorney General announced his intention to prefer a second Bill. The language used by that right hon. and learned Gentleman on the occasion to which he referred deserved the attention of the House. The Attorney General for Ireland said—he believed on Wednesday, the 8th of November— I must trouble the Grand Jury to give its attendance in the morning. There is another Bill to go out against all the defendants. I do not think, Gentlemen, it will occupy much of your time; but I must request you will attend to-morrow morning. But previously to that declaration, when the first Bill was presented, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made this observation— If the present Bill before the Grand Jury is found, we shall undertake to establish as wicked and as foul a conspiracy as ever disturbed the Empire. He did not know whether that language was to be regarded as applicable to the Bill of Indictment which became the subject of the trial, or to the second Indictment sent up to the Grand Jury, but he was inclined to think that after the first indictment had been sent up to the Grand Jury, charges of a more serious nature were preferred in the second indictment, and those charges not being substantiated by sufficient evidence, the Government were obliged to drop the second bill, and to content themselves with trying the defend- ants on the first. He did not profess to be competent to judge of the conduct of the trial with regard to legal matters, but, as one of the people, though an unprofessional man, he had a right to form his opinion of the impression which had been created in the minds of the people with reference to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. He did not hesitate to say, then, that a general conviction prevailed among the people that, throughout the proceedings, the persons who conducted the prosecution had manifested a disinclination—putting out of consideration all legal technicalities—to give the accused those advantages which they had fairly a right to demand. He would instance the conduct of Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, with reference to Mr. Bond Hughes, Mr. Hughes made a mistake as to the identity of Mr. Barrett; he afterwards discovered that mistake at Judge Burton's, and communicated with Mr. Kemmis on the subject. Mr. Hughes afterwards found that informations were about to be lodged against him for wilful and corrupt perjury; but even at that time Mr. Kemmis took no steps to correct the mistake. The same course was pursued throughout the proceedings—with reference to the demand for copies of the indictment, and for the names of the witnesses. In all those cases the Crown exercised its rights—he would not say in a spirit of hostility to the traversers, but, at least, with an utter absence of that fairness and generosity which he conceived ought, in such a case, to have characterized the conduct of the prosecutors. A demand was made on the part of the traversers for a copy of the indictment. The English law required, that an accused person should be informed of the nature of the accusation made against him, and of the names of his accusers. It was required by statute, that certain conditions should be fulfilled, in order to give validity to a bill of indictment. It was required that the names should be properly endorsed and signed. Was it unreasonable, then, on the part of the traversers to ask the Crown to give them an opportunity of judging whether or not the conditions required by the statute had been complied with? The application was, however, refused, and it now appeared that the names on the bill were not duly endorsed and signed. The refusal of this application was grounded on the apprehension that advantage might be taken of its concession to interpose delay at the commencement of the trial. The same course was adopted with reference to the caption. But the great feature of the case was, as he conceived, the manner in which the Jury had been constituted. If the Jury were constituted unequally or partially it was vain to talk of the impartiality of the Judge, or the crime of the accused. He would show the House what had been the course adopted in this case as to the constitution of the Jury; and he would say to that House, as the protectors of the liberties of the people, as the conservators of that great palladium of the English people—trial by jury—"Inquire into the facts of this case; justify yourselves from the imputation of being participators in the atrocity committed in the case I am now bringing before you; if you be an Anglo-Irish Parliament, convince the Irish people that you are their friends, and do not force upon them the absolute necessity of dissolving the Union, and of recurring to their own legal tribunals." The facts with reference to this point were stated very clearly and concisely in a petition presented a few days ago to that House from the solicitors to the traversers. That petion had been met by a counter-petition; and he begged the attention of the House while he compared the statements of those petitions with regard to the principal points of the case. The first statement of the traversers' solicitors was, that Mr. Justice Burton, in his charge to the Grand Jury, truly described the case as awful in its consequences, and one which ought to be tried only by a Jury constituted in such a manner as to place it above suspicion. But the statements which had been made showed that it was altogether impossible, from the manner in which the Jury list had been constituted, that more than a very small proportion of Roman Catholics could be placed upon the Jury. An application was made to the Court for the postponement of the case until the Special Jury List for 1844 came into operation. That application was opposed by the Attorney General, but the objection was overruled by the Court, and the case was accordingly postponed. But he could call the attention of the House to the duties discharged by various officers in the preparation of the Special Jury List. An alteration was made in the old law on this subject by the 3rd and 4th William IV., c. 93. By that Act there was to be an annual revision of jurors in every county and city throughout Ireland. The collectors of the Grand Jury Cess, on precept from the Clerks of the Peace, were required to return lists of persons, in alphabetical order, liable to serve on juries, with their true place of abode, their title, quality, calling, or business, and the nature of the qualification of every man; these lists were to be open for public inspection. The ninth section of the Act defined the duties of the Justices of the Peace (the Recorder being the Judge for the City of Dublin) in relation to the revision, which were—to fix a place and time for holding a Special Sessions for the purpose of examining the said lists of jurors, at which the collectors' lists which had been lodged with the clerks of the peace were to be produced, considered, reformed, and allowed; to strike out names of persons not qualified and to insert in such lists the name of any man omitted therein, and to reform any errors or omissions which should appear to them to have been committed in respect to the name, place of abode, title, quality, calling, business, or the nature of the qualification of any man included in any such list; and when every such list should be duly corrected and allowed and signed by them or three of them, justices (the Recorder being the person for the City of Dublin), they should cause one general list to be made therefrom, containing the names of all persons whose qualifications should have been so allowed, arranged according to rank and property, and should deliver the same to the Clerk of the Peace who should thereupon cause the same to be truly and fairly copied in the same order, with proper columns, and should deliver the same to the Sheriff, &c. The 24th section gave the explanation of the terms "rank" and "property," where it directed the sheriff as to the persons whom he shall place on the Special Jury panel. By it the classes were sons of Peers, Baronets, Knights, Magistrates, persons who had served, or had been returned to serve as Grand Jurors at the Assizes; all bankers, wholesale merchants who did not exercise retail trades, and all traders who were possessed of personal property of the value of 5,000l., and of the eldest sons of such persons respectively. It was also appointed by this act, that the annual revision of the collectors' lists, from which the Jurors' Book for the year 1844 was to be made up, should commence on the 14th day of November last, and such revision did commence to be holden on that day before the right hon. the Recorder. It had been represented to him, that on that occasion, the Court of Revision presented a scene closely resembling that exhibited at a contested election. The Conservative interest was represented there as well as the repeal interest. But the repeal interest stood in this position—they were the traversers, they were the accused parties, and it was natural that they should be anxious to protect themselves from the charge of tampering with the lists of jurors by whom the case now under consideration was to be tried. He learned from the petition to which he had referred, that the solicitors on behalf of the Conservatives were Messrs. Wauchob and Jackson, the former being the conducting agent for the Conservative candidates to represent the city of Dublin at the last two elections, and employed at several preceding elections for said city in opposition to Mr. O'Connell, the leading traverser, and also employed by the Conservative party at the several revisions of the burgess roll, in opposition to the franchises of the great bulk of the citizens, the latter being conducting agent at elections for the county of Dublin, and for the Conservative candidates. During the revision the solicitors for the traversers applied to Magrath for an opportunity of inspecting the list, to be permitted to compare the list with the one which had been made. This was a public document, and ought to have been open to inspection. He was aware that the Recorder (whom he was extremely sorry to say was not in the House) had on a former occasion said that the list was covered with private notes which he himself had made. The right hon. Gentleman may have considered the document private; but he could not see how such a list could be viewed otherwise than as a public document, to which the traversers might have access. They complained that they were prohibited from comparing the list. But was that the case of Messrs. Wauchob and Jackson? Were these Gentlemen prevented from making a full comparison of all the lists? They were permitted to compare the whole of the lists. How had Magrath met these facts? He stated that a comparison was allowed, as stated in the seventh paragraph; but he could not say whether the comparison was correct or not. The petitioner did not at the time think it was wrong to allow such comparison to be made; but, upon informing the Recorder that he had allowed this comparison to be instituted (but this information was not made until some time afterwards), he blamed the petitioner for allowing any person connected with the party to have access to the list, particularly as it might have been in their power to have altered that list; but the petitioners said that they could not have done so, as other parties were present at the time; but, upon consideration, he admitted that he was wrong for having allowed such comparison to be made. How was it that that Wauchob and Jackson were allowed to compare the list. They were not allowed by their own clerks to do it, but by the clerks of Magrath; but Magrath had not done so for the solicitors of the traversers. The solicitors were not told that they might compare or go over the list. In reference to this transaction, the first thing that met the public eye was the partiality shown towards the party connected with the Conservative interest of Dublin. He did not pretend to say that it was in his power to put his finger upon the person who employed Mr. Wauchob and Mr. Walker. But what had hon. Gentlemen opposite been endeavouring to do? They had tried to impress upon the people of Ireland that the law had been carried fully out, and yet at the same time they allowed this matter to remain unexplained. It was not his wish to cast any imputations upon the character of the Recorder of Dublin. If such was his intention, he would have done so when the right hon. Gentleman was present in the House, and had an opportunity of defending himself. At the same time, he must say, that he had given full notice of his Motion, and the Recorder ought to have been present upon an occasion when his conduct was involved in the matter of the inquiry. Immediately after the comparison of the list the Recorder left Dublin. This was on the 29th of November. The Recorder went to England; when he travelled about from place to place for the period of three weeks. The right hon. Gentleman might say, that his judicial functions had ceased. If his judicial functions had ceased, his ministerial duties had to be performed, and it was not easy to imagine how these functions could be carried on at such a distance from the seat of action. If this had not been productive of any injury it might have been passed over in silence, and have been merely considered a neglectful mode of performing official duties. He would, however, leave the House to decide whether the Recorder was altogether free from blame. In the sixteenth paragraph of the Petition from the nobility and gentry of Ireland, it was made a subject of complaint— That the list of jurors, or names, or jurors' books so handed in by the Recorder is on all hands admitted to be defective, and does not contain the names of all persons adjudicated on by the Recorder as being entitled to be placed on such jurors' book; for your petitioners show that the Recorder himself admits that twenty-four names were omitted, and that, of these twenty-four, nineteen were Roman Catholics. That petitioners insist that a greater number of names than the Recorder has stated to have been omitted were in point of fact omitted, and that their omission was the result of design; and petitioners Pierce Mahony, William Ford, and John Macnamara Cantwell, have, on their solemn oaths of record in the Court of Queen's Bench, in Ireland, deposed, to the truth of their convictions, that the suppression of the names was effected with a fraudulent intent; the petitioners Thomas Reilly and Peter M'Evoy Gartlan not having joined in making said affidavits from the circumstance that they are for the most part resident out of Dublin, in the counties of Louth and Monaghan, and did not particularly attend to the investigation of the jury lists in reference to the defence of the traversers, but, from a review of the circumstances, inform your honourable House that they are fully convinced that such suppression of the names was effected with a fraudulent purpose. Again, it was charged by petitioners, among other names, that— The names of Robert Molloy, Bryan Molloy, Robert Gatchell, John Gaynor, Christopher Gillespie, John Hussey Walsh, James White, William Torrens M'Cullagh, and Richard William Barrington, were also omitted; and by the affidavits of the Clerks of the Peace and said Magrath, it is now admitted that your petitioners' information was correct as to those names; and petitioners inform your honourable House this indisputably correct information was had from the clerks employed in said revisions by or on the part of these petitioners, although same, with the exception of the name of Richard William Barrington, who appeared on the compared list of St. Audeon's parish was not on any of the compared parochial lists, the other persons last above named not being resident in any of the parishes of which petitioners had completed the comparison. That by said affidavit it is admitted that twenty-four persons duly qualified had been omitted, whose names petitioners had stated in their challenge had been suppressed, which sustains the statement of petitioners as to the number and extent of the suppressions of the special jury panel, and which is further corroborated by the admission of the Recorder as to his striking out the name of William Saurin, who was dead several years; but such striking out was done after said revision closed in open court. That of these nine names four were Roman Catholics, one a Quaker, and four Protestants, and among the Protestants was Mr. M'Cullagh who was always esteemed as a man of the most liberal principles in politics. That petitioners deny the truth of the statement in the affidavit of the clerks of the peace or Mr. Magrath, that no other person who had been adjudicated on as a person qualified to be a special juror was omitted. On the contrary, they allege, and are able to prove, notwithstanding all the impediments thrown in the way of ascertainining the truth, that George Hurst, of Cardiff's-lane, Sir John Rogerson's-quay, duly qualified, as a wholesale merchant, to be placed on the special jury panel, and he has made an affidavit in the case which has been filed in the Court of Queen's Bench. The residence of George Hurst is in the parish of Saint Mark, and he is a Roman Catholic, James Dillon has made an affidavit that he attended in person before the said Recorder as a trader worth 5,000l., and was adjudicated upon as a person qualified to be on the special jury panel; that he is a Roman Catholic, and his residence is in Stony Batter, in the parish of St. Paul. John Elliott, of Thomas-street, which is in the parish of St. Catherine's, has made an affidavit that he was before the Recorder, and duly qualified as a trader worth 5,000l., and was adjudicated upon as a person so qualified to be on the special panel; and, having been informed by one of the petitioners clerks, who saw him so qualify in open court, and who was one of those that compared the list that his qualification was omitted, he immediately, on receiving such information, and, on or about the 9th of December, wrote to the Recorder calling his attention to the fact, and has set forth such letter in his affidavit; he is a Roman Catholic. But that was not the only charge that he had to make with respect to the proceedings of those concerned on behalf of the prosecution in preparing the Special Jury List. There was another accusation that he had to make, which was that several qualifications had been added to the list subsequent to the proceedings taken with regard to it in the open court. And how had that charge been met by Mr. Magrath? Why, by his admission of the truth of the imputation. He had acknowledged that qualifications had been added to the lists of jurors after adjudication, and the names of William Pride and John Pride were added as grand jurors and leaseholders, although at the same time it was asserted that those two were the only additions so made. But was it so certain that they were all the names thus placed on the list after its adjudication? Of that he would not speak with certainty, but he must observe that on the 2nd of January, on the Recorder's return to Dublin, and after the book of jurors had been entirely taken out of his custody, the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to the sheriff stating that it appeared several jurors, to the number of four or five persons whom he named, had been left out of the list of special jurors, placed on the list of common jurors, and that he was willing to take the responsibility, not only of adding them to the lists already made out, but also of placing others there who might be similarly circumstanced. On the 4th of January it was discovered, that sixty names had been omitted from the list, and a notice was served on the right hon. Gentleman (the Recorder), and others connected with the prosecution, of such omissions. This circumstance formed a subject of conversation at the time in Dublin, and it was notorious; yet, notwithstanding the Recorder had professed his willingness to add any jurors to the list who might have been omitted, and notwithstanding the affidavits of the traversers' solicitors that such omissions as he stated had been made in the list, he absolutely said nothing with respect to what he had done in the case, and took no steps whatever to see that justice was awarded to the parties aggrieved, And what was the result of this neglect? Why, that when the circumstance was brought to the knowledge of the court, the judges said they had no authority to amend the list; the sheriff had no authority to rectify the error; and, whilst the fact that such omissions had been made was concealed from the public, no steps were ever resorted to, that the wrong might be remedied, neither was the argument which was urged at the time, founded on the wrong done to the traversers, and of the serious evils which it occasioned to them, of any avail. The omission of these names also formed one of the arguments before the superior court, and it was urged as a reason for reversing the judgment; but the traversers counsel were told that they ought to have had recourse in the first instance to the judges of the court below, where every such irregularity or omission could have been remedied. Surely that was not the way to do justice. The Recorder ought to have let the omission be known to the court in sufficient time to have enabled it to be remedied; he had totally neglected to do so, and with this primâ facie evidence he considered he had made out a case, and had stated good grounds for the House to grant a Committee of Inquiry into the circumstances, and he did not know whether, if such an inquiry were gone into, it might not be discovered, that other interferences with the impartial administration of justice than those which he had pointed out, had taken place. He was precluded by the terms of his Motion from going into the minutiæ of the trial, but he could not refrain from touching upon that proceeding, and asking the Government what had been gained by it? What effects had been produced by the late prosecutions? Was the right hon. Baronet opposite more satisfied than he had been before them, with the state and prospects of Ireland? Was the public peace there in a better state of preservation? Was there less disturbance, or was there more tranquillity? Had the people of Ireland submitted quietly, or had they rebelled openly? They had done neither the one nor the other. They stood in a position the worst of all that could be opposed to a Government. They sullenly treasured up the memory of their wrongs; they suppressed their hatreds; they smothered their animosities; and reserved the expression of their vengeance to a future day— Odia in longum jaciens, quæ reconderet, auctaque promeret. There were organizations amongst the people of Ireland before the late prosecutions; but were there none at the present moment? There were no monster meetings; no crowds at Tara or Mullaghmast now, to demonstrate the sentiments of the Irish people, but had they not the declaration of the mayors of municipalities of Ireland in favour of Repeal, and were there not symptoms to be observed at present, ten times more formidable than either the demonstrations at Tara or that at Mullaghmast? Did the Government think they could suppress Mr. O'Connell by what they had done? Were the addresses which flowed into him from all parts of the empire to be regarded in that light? Did they not perceive how they had built up Mr. O'Connell? His talents alone would never have achieved that for him which the oppression of the Government had done. It was not he that had created revolutions, but revolutions that had created him. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman opposite that until the system of government of Ireland was founded on the mutual sympathies of the people, and the mutual wants and wishes of the two nations, until the union of Ireland with England was completed, he did not mean such an union as that of England and America or of Belgium and Spain, but an union like that of Scotland and England, until he repeated, this intimate amalgamation of the two people was accomplished it would be in vain to look for submission or tranquillity on the part of the Irish nation. It was not enough to tell the House that the present Government did not ask for a Coercion Bill, and to point out that Ireland had not been placed under martial law. Very different language ought now to be used if conciliation and not fresh irritation was desired. The Government ought to tell the House and the people of Ireland, that their predecessors and themselves had made great and grievous mistakes; that they were willing to repair the error into which they had fallen; and that finding they had wronged the Irish nation, they were ready to undo the injury that had been inflicted; and when such a course as that was taken by this country towards the oppressed people of Ireland, then, and not till then, would peace, tranquillity, and contentment become the characteristics of his countrymen. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by submitting his Motion.

Lord Eliot

said, that during a large portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down he had fancied that he was labouring under a delusion, and that he was listening to the tenth night's discussion of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for London, so numerous were the topics of his speech. Had he believed it to bare been the right hon. Gentleman's intention to have entered upon so wide a field, he should rather have expected him to have given notice of his intention previously; but after the full explanation of every stage of the proceedings during the late state trials that had been given on a former occasion by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. B. C. Smith), he (Lord Eliot) did not think he was called upon to follow the right hon. Gentleman into any other topics than those strictly comprised within his Motion, with respect to which he trusted he might be permitted to make a few observations. The House could not, with any propriety, accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman unless he had satisfied them upon three distinct points. First, that there had been a fraudulent tampering with the jury lists: secondly, that this had been prejudicial to the traversers; and, thirdly, that his Motion, if agreed to, would produce some useful practical results. Now, he did not think that either of these positions had been established by the right hon. Gentleman—and he certainly did not consider his Motion to be likely to produce any good effects if granted; he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had read all the affidavits which he had referred to; but when he asserted that instead of there having been twenty-four omissions from the Jury List, there were nearly, if not quite, sixty, he must observe, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had established the facts which he had stated: neither did he expect that he would have attempted to cast such a slur upon the character of a gentleman of his own religious persuasion. Mr. Magrath was a Roman Catholic, he had forwarded a petition to the House, and he had therein shown in every case of omission, a reason why such names had been left out of the Jury List. He did not think it was quite fair in the right hon. Gentleman to impugn the statement of Mr. Magrath. With respect to Mr. Eliot, it was to be observed that no statement had ever been made by him of his being a trader worth 5,000l.; and, consequently, he could discover no grounds for that person's complaint. He however, should not enter upon a discussion of the merits of each case; he knew nothing except what he had learned from Mr. Magrath's statement, and every one was as competent as himself to ascertain the facts and to judge of them; but what he would meet was the charge that had now been brought of a deliberate fraud having been practised with respect to the jury lists. There was no such charge ever preferred by any of the traversers. They had said, generally that some fraud might have been committed; but that could not have justified, or in any way afforded, grounds for an attack on the officers of the Crown. Nothing in this respect could have been attributed to Mr. Kemmis—nothing to the clerks of the Crown. They had denied all participation in whatever omissions had been made. The chief clerk in their office prepared the lists in the usual form for the Recorder of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman had gone much further than before; for he had made several most serious charges against his right hon. and learned Friend. And what had been the gravamen of his charge? Why, that the lists prepared by Mr. Magrath did not contain the names of many Roman Catholics who ought, as he said, to be there. But what he would say was, that a Roman Catholic could not reasonably be supposed to entertain a bias against another Roman Catholic, so as to exclude him from a jury list on that account. Was there any evidence of Mr. Magrath's having shown a bias in favour of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that Mr. Magrath had placed the jury lists—before the authenticated copy had been made out, and whilst yet they might have been tampered with—before the solicitors of the traversers, when they might have altered them. But the right hon. Gentleman also asserted that the lists had been sent to his right hon. Friend the Recorder after his return from England, and, notwithstanding his right hon. Friend's denial that such had been the case, the right hon. Gentleman had repeated the charge. Why, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, should Mr. Magrath, after having suffered four of Mr. Mahony's clerks to inspect the lists before they were authenticated, refuse to suffer them afterwards to be examined? It was Mr. Mahony himself who had served notices upon many of the jurors, warning them that, if they did not attend to prove their qualifications, they would be struck off the list; and, could it be expected that, if these persons did not desire to be included in the Jury List, they would employ and pay an agent to attend the court in order to see that their names were not so struck off the list? There could be no just grounds of accusation against the Recorder, for he had acted all throughout the proceedings in strict compliance with the directions of the statute. He had presided at the registration court to adjudicate upon the claims of all persons wishing to serve as jurors, and had either marked with his own hand, or directed others to mark under his superintendence, every name which appeared upon the lists, arranging them according to the rank and qualification of the jurors in nine distinct classes. There were thus no less than 180 sheets of large paper covered with names, and the result was, that a great multitude of slips were made in order to arrange them so as to form the Jury List, at the head of which the names of the special jurors were to be placed. The slips were in this way made in the Jury List, or rather the jurors' book, for the year 1844. The hon. Gentleman opposite had cast much blame upon the Recorder, because that officer had not performed certain duties, which, however, the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench did not think he was at all called upon to execute, and had found fault with him on very trivial grounds indeed. Now, he could inform the hon. Member that the Recorder was bound to adjudicate in the registration court upon the qualification of the jurors, but beyond that his power ceased when he had caused the jurors' lists to be prepared, and that he was not bound to go beyond that point. The Recorder in the present case had performed his duty to its full extent, and he was not in any way responsible for the errors which might have easily occurred in making out such a multitude of names, unless it could be shown that they were fraudulently committed. If that were not the case, and if errors, arising from inaccuracy in making out the lists, were to be considered as inaccuracies for which that officer was answerable, there was not a single jury ever struck in Ireland from the verdict of which an appeal might not be made in that House. It was quite evident that in such proceedings, where the documents were so numerous, errors would necessarily occur, and Gentlemen opposite could not demand inquiry, or expect to have that demand complied with, unless they could show some unequivocal fraud. When they could show that such had been the case, and that there had been any wrong done, their course was open to those who complained of it. Nothing was more easy than to file a criminal information against the offending party; but that House was not the proper tribunal to decide upon such complaints, nor had it the power to investigate them properly. A Committee of the House had no power to examine witnesses upon oath, and he said again, that the constitutional course to pursue in every case where there was suspicion resting on more solid grounds than vague surmises that fraud had been committed, was to proceed against the offender in a Court of Common Law, and file a criminal information against him. He did not wish to go into all the particular details of the case, but he would call the attention of the House to the course taken by his right hon. Friend the Attorney General, as there had been some statements made to the House on that point by the hon. Member opposite, in making which, he would not accuse the hon. Member of wilful misrepresentation, but he would certainly say that he had founded it upon very erroneous information. It had been said by the hon. Member, in the course of his speech, that his Friend, the Attorney General for Ireland had objected to the postponement of the trial when those defects in the jurors' book were urged as a reason for it. Now, that was not the case, but it was to the jury-book formed in October, 1842, that the objection was taken, which had been in operation for more than twelve months, and according to which every case had been tried during that time. When, however, it was stated that there were but 388 names upon that book, out of which only some twenty-five or twenty-six were Roman Catholics, his Friend the Attorney General consented to a postponement of the proceedings, in order to bring in the new list for 1844, and in doing so, he (Lord Eliot) thought that even hon. Gentlemen opposite had not found fault with him. The new lists were accordingly formed, and the names upon the jurors' book increased from 388 to 714, out of which number 181 were Roman Catholics. When the lists were complete, and the jurors' book, it was impossible to make any alteration, for the effect of that, or of postponement, would have been, that every trial would have to take place with juries struck from the book for 1843. Surely the hon. Member would not have been satisfied with that. There was one course, however, which it would have been quite competent to the traversers to have taken, which had not, indeed, been alluded to by any of the counsel employed on the occasion, but had been thrown out suggestively by Mr. Justice Crampton, and that was, to have had their case tried by the jury of the county of Dublin. The learned gentleman engaged for the defendants had not thought fit to adopt that proposition, which he conceived they should have taken advantage of, if they were under the impression that they had not been fairly dealt with. There was another point in which he thought the hon. Member opposite had not been quite so candid as he usually was. He had not been quite fair towards the Jury in the remarks he had made, and had spoken in terms of much unmerited harshness of their conduct. For his own part, without going into any legal technicalities, he must be permitted to say, that the jury had, in their verdict, evinced a spirit of discrimination which showed their attention throughout the whole of the proceedings. The hon. Member spoke of the partiality of the Jury, and made some remarks upon them which were unjust and unwarranted. What was the language used by one of the counsel for the traversers, who certainly could not be said to have exhibited much temperance of speech in those trials? Mr. Fitzgibbon said, that with reference to some previous objection to the Jury Panel, He was not to be supposed for a moment to mean that any of those twenty-four gentlemen were not properly qualified, and that no man should imagine but that they would administer justice in as pure and straightforward a manner as any that could be selected. He was not arguing against the men on the panel, but against the constitution of it, and if the opinion of the Court were against them, he would not say but that the traversers had no reason to complain, and that as far as the constitution of the tribunal was concerned with regard to the persons upon it, there was no ground for any imputation whatever. Such had been the language of Mr. Fitzgibbon. Let the House now see whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence, without, however, entering into questions of legal nicety. He did not think it necessary for him to argue with the hon. Member as to the law of conspiracy, and he would, therefore, go on to declare his opinion that the Jury were right in giving the verdict they had returned, for they had to take the law on those points from the Judges, nor could it be any reproach to them that they had done so. It was the province of the Judges to lay down the law; and it was very well for counsel to take technical objections, but in that House such a course could not be adopted. Would the traversers venture to say in that House that they had not been present at any monster meetings? They could not do so, whilst in the Court of Queen's Bench the point had been raised that there was no proof of some such fact. Could such an objection be relied upon in that House? Could they say in that House that their conduct had been different from that which was imputed to them? Could they deny that they had attended multitudinous meetings? Were not seditious writings published which had received their sanction? No; these were all matters of notoriety in that House which would not admit of dispute, and if the law laid down to the Jury were correct—upon which question there was now an appeal to the Supreme Tribunal—he said that there could be no alternative but to find such a verdict. It would be, he conceived, a libel upon any body to say that he would not have found the same verdict, upon the same evidence, and under the same direction as to the law. The hon. Member had attacked the composition of the Jury, but he might have recollected that similar attacks had been already three times made in the Court of Queen's Bench, and had been uniformly defeated. First, there had been an objection fully argued before the proceedings commenced; next, the challenge to the array; and, thirdly, the Motion for a new trial; on all of which occasions the question had been brought most fully before the Court. The challenge to the array appeared upon the record, which had been referred to the House of Lords, and it appeared that the sixth question submitted to the Judges by that high Court of Appeal was, "whether there were sufficient grounds for reversing the judgment, because of the Court having overruled and disallowed the challenge to the array?" This, therefore, was in his opinion no fit subject to be discussed in that House, because it was already under the consideration of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, and there were, he thought, no just grounds—nay, more, it would be highly improper to interfere in a matter which at that very moment was sub judice. He did not think that the present Motion could lead to any benefi- cial result, and in the present state of public feeling in Ireland, he feared it would only tend to excite expectations which would produce the most dangerous consequences. If the hon. Member believed that any fraud had been committed, he had his remedy, but he would oppose the Motion before the House, for he did not think it could be productive of any benefit if granted. With these few words he would content himself, leaving it to his Friend the Attorney General to reply to any legal objections which had been advanced by the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

said, that in rising to speak on this question, he laboured under some difficulty, because he felt that he could hardly prevent himself giving way to the feeling that if there had been any fraud or any collusion in this matter, he was intimately allied to the party who had been made the victim of that fraud and of that collusion. The present subject was one that occupied a great space in the public mind; and the noble Lord must not lay the flattering unction to his soul, that because they were in the middle of the month of July the question could silently pass over. It not only engaged the attention of men's minds in this country, but it interested the public mind of Europe, and would, he ventured to prophesy, be a matter of paramount interest to posterity. The question came to this. Had these trials been fairly conducted? The noble Lord had said:—"Don't come to the House of Commons; we cannot do anything for you: a Committee of the House of Commons cannot administer an oath." What, then, did the noble Lord tell them to do? Why, file a criminal information! Yes; file a criminal information, to be tried before Chief Justice Pennefather and a Dublin Jury. The noble Lord had asked whether they (himself—Mr. O'Connell and his friends) thought that a Committee of Inquiry would produce a satisfactory result? He would tell the noble Lord that if anything would continue a feeling of dissatisfaction it would be a refusal to appoint a Committee of Inquiry upon such grounds as the noble Lord had refused it. It had been admitted, both by the Recorder and by Mr. Magrath, that twenty-four names were omitted from the list. Now, connected with these omissions, there were some curious facts. The whole list of the parish of St. Audeon was said to be lost. This was extraordinary, because the persons whose names were on that list were nearly all Liberal in their opinion; and if they could be supposed to be liable to any bias, that bias would have been in favour of the traversers. How the list became lost was the question. It was a matter of suspicion, and ought to be inquired into. It was a remarkable fact that Messrs. Wauchob and Jackson were allowed the inspection of the lists, which was refused to Mr. Mahony; and that, while the former Gentlemen had twenty-four lists corrected for them, Mr. Mahony had only four and a half lists corrected for him. About one-fourth of the lists was looked over by Mr. Mahony's clerks, while persons on the other side had had the opportunity of going through the whole of it. These were suspicious facts, and no doubt they would be so considered by the country. Regarding them, the friends of the Motion challenged inquiry, when it would be proved that names standing on the Special Jury List of 1843, were placed upon the common Jury List of 1844, while persons whose qualifications were patent, found themselves entirely excluded. He now came to advert particularly to the important parish of St. Audeon's, the list belonging to which had, by some strange circumstance, been dropped. This was an enigma of more difficult solution than any since the time of Œdipus. It contained fifteen names, but what was even stranger than the loss of it, a sixteenth name of that parish was found in the Special Jury List. Nothing less than a miracle could account for this fact, if, as was contended, all was fair. John Carroll, who was worth 5,000l., and whose name had a cross against it, ought to have been the sixteenth in the list of fifteen lost names, but his name was actually found in the jury-book. He ought to have been "the lost Pleiad," but he was the found juror. This was a matter for the whole party to explain, from the Recorder of Dublin down to Mr. Magrath. If there were a particle of fairness in the Government, they could not refuse inquiry into so flagrant a circumstance; if they meant to hold out a pretext of discharging their duty to the country, they could not refuse the Committee. Could they get over the allegations respecting the Jury List?—could they get over the fact, that Mr. Magrath had not allowed his facts to ooze out until the last moment? In the whole affair, there was sufficient to excite more than suspicion. In the present state of public feeling in Ireland, it could not have a good effect if ministers appeared inclined to treat this great subject with levity. There were other circumstances in the list of the parish of St. Audeon which he had omitted to notice and which required remark. Two gentlemen, of the name of White, carried on business as partners in the leather trade, and yet one of them was excluded from, and the other included in the list of special jurors, while a portrait painter, said to be worth 5,000l., was dignified with the title of esquire. Two gentlemen, of the name of Papworth, were inserted on the ground that they were the eldest sons of their father; the only way to account for this was, to suppose, in the words of the Irish song, that "They were twins and not know it." Even this excuse could not be found for three Rileys, who were in the same predicament. [Laughter.] The good natured levity of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen was hardly appropriate to the subject. [Sir R. Peel: You should not quote Irish songs.] It might be very well for the sufferers to attempt to joke away their grief, but it ill became the Government to endeavour to laugh away the effect of the present Motion. In the same jury list he saw the name of two Twigs, both of whom could not be eldest sons; if they were Twigs of the same tree, they were not Twigs of the same growth. [Sir R. Peel: Your jokes are irresistible.] These ridiculous blunders happened to be all on the same side of the question, for the three Rileys (he believed) were of the same religion and of the same politics. He contended that, as a mere act of justice to the Recorder of Dublin, the Government ought to institute an inquiry. Would they allow such charges to be made, and not give him, and all persons connected with his office, the benefit of an investigation? He did not wish to enter into topics discussed on former occasions, fearing that he could not treat them as calmly and temperately as they deserved; and he would say, in conclusion, that if Ministers resisted inquiry, and thereby left the public mind unsatisfied, the present would not be by any means the last, or the least troublesome, discussion on the affairs of Ireland to which they would be exposed. The question of the legality of the verdict was now before another tribunal, and while the discussion was pending his right hon. Friend (Mr. Wyse) had judiciously postponed the present Motion. The question was in the hands of the highest tribunal of the land, and supposing the verdict were confirmed, Ministers would have to show not only that the verdict was legal, but that it was just. Nothing could more exasperate the public mind in the present unhappy state of parties in the two countries than that mere law should have been on the side of the Government, and absolute justice on the side of the accused; it became Ministers to prove to all mankind that tyranny had not worked its wantonness under the form of law.

The Solicitor General

said, the peculiar position of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had led him to do some injustice to the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. He saw nothing like indifference or levity in the conduct of the noble Lord; nothing fell from him which justified the hon. Member in saying that the noble Lord was sneering. The noble Lord certainly had alluded to the fact that there had been a nine nights' debate on the affairs of Ireland in the early part of the Session, in which every fact and argument which had been addressed to the House that night had been reiterated over and over again; and the noble Lord was perfectly justified in doing so, because, when an hon. Member came forward at a period of the Session so late, the House had a right to expect to hear from him some new arguments or a different statement of facts in order to ground a Motion for inquiry. It was a most important question, and therefore it was that he regretted the course which the hon. Member had taken, because, although he would not attribute any improper motives to the right hon. Member, or any mischievous intention, still he must say that the effect of the discussion was calculated to cast suspicion upon the administration of justice. Look at what were the circumstances under which the Motion was made. A most dangerous and pernicious conspiracy was in existence in Ireland—a conspiracy which even threatened the dismemberment of the empire. Her Majesty's Government did not resort to extraordinary powers—they did not come down to the House and ask for a Coercion Bill. With no other weapon than the ordinary arm of the law they beat that conspiracy to the ground. The offenders were now prostrate at the foot of justice, and the hon. Member thought it a proper time to insinuate a something against the fairness of the proceedings which led to the conviction. It was to be remembered that the subject was not before the House then for the first time, and he said most emphatically, that from the beginning to the end of that most important trial, there had not been the slightest ground for imputing any unfairness or the least tinge of impropriety to those conducting it: nor had anything taken place but what, under similar circumstances, would have taken place in this country. Every one who had witnessed or read of the conduct of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, must have been convinced not only of the great ability which he displayed, and the dexterity which he had shown in extricating himself from the difficulties which were thrown in his way by the very able counsel for the traversers, but of the fairness and moderation of his conduct throughout the whole of the lengthened trial. That panegyric was not his, it was an acknowledgment which had been extracted from one of the most talented and eloquent of those who were opposed to him. The hon. Gentleman complained that no copy of the indictment had been furnished to the defendants. Now, there was no refusal of a copy of the indictment; nay, so far from it, that upon the very day on which the bill was found, eight copies of the indictment were made and served upon the respective defendants. They then applied for what they chose to call a complete copy—a copy with the names of the witnesses, which was most properly refused on the part of his right hon. and learned Friend. He would have been guilty of a dereliction of his duty had he acceded to the application after the manner in which the witness Bond Hughes was treated, as soon as it became known that the indictment had been found upon his informations. Besides, in that refusal, his right hon. and learned Friend had the whole Court with him, with the exception of Mr. Justice Perrin. Then as to the lists, undoubtedly by some unfortunate accident, but certainly with no fraudulent design, some of the lists were mislaid; but, he would ask, was that the tribunal, or was that the proper time to inquire whether those lists were properly prepared or not? He most distinctly said no. If there was a fraud in the preparation of the panel it would be a ground for a special application to set it aside. Such an application was made, and heard on affidavits, and the Court decided that the defendants had no right under the circumstances to call on them to grant the panel. There was another mode in which the defendants could obviate all the inconvenience which might arise from a defective panel. They might have applied for a trial in the county of Dublin at large; and, as such a course was never suggested by any of the sixteen most able and ingenious counsel engaged for them, he was entitled to observe, that it was because they did not feel that there was any injury likely to result from a jury constituted as that was, but were not willing to abandon the possession of a grievance which might be useful at a future time. When the trial approached, another attempt was made to impeach the panel by a challenge to the array on the ground that a portion of the list from which the Jury was to be formed had been fraudulently abstracted. It would be presumptuous in him at the present time to say whether that was a valid challenge or not; but he must say that he considered, as his right hon. and learned Friend considered, that it was not a challenge on which he ought to take a traverse in point of fact, and therefore he demurred to the whole of the challenge. What was the proper conclusion to be drawn from that demurrer? He had seen leading articles in newspapers within these few days, stating that that was an admission that there was a fraudulent list, and that the Lord Chancellor distinctly treated it as an admitted fact. Let him for a moment endeavour to disabuse the public mind from such an impression. Admission it was in a certain sense; for no person could demur in law without admitting the facts on which the law arose; but it was an admission only for the sake of argument, and it meant nothing more than this—"granting as correctly stated all the facts on which you found this challenge to the array, yet I contend that it is not a good challenge in point of law, and by my demurrer I raise that question with you." It was, therefore, a most unworthy proceeding—looking to the position in which those parties were placed—to endeavour to deceive those who were not aware of the technical character of this mode of proceeding, and to persuade them that the Lord Chancellor stated that it was admitted that there was a fraudulent list, and that the parties were at liberty to deal with it as an undoubted fact. All that the Lord Chancellor said was, "In the present proceedings it is admitted that there was a fraudulent list; you must take it for granted that there was a fraudulent list; it is not a question that can be argued before this House. You must take it for granted and apply yourselves to the point of law which is raised upon it." A majority of the Judges decided on the demurrer against the challenge to the array; and this brought him to another point in the case. Those who read the very temperate and judicious as well as able opening of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would be disposed to do him justice for his conduct of the proceedings in court, and not to adopt—he would not say the charge of the hon. Gentleman but—the insinuation that no advantage whatever was given to the defendants by the mode in which the prosecution was conducted. The hon. Gentleman said that the verdict pronounced was not satisfactory, in consequence of the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice. He must say that this was a very unfair and unjust attempt to cast reflection on the eminent Judge who presided at that trial—considering the situation in which he was placed—the opportunity there was, if there had been any failure on his part, or impropriety with regard to his mode of charging the Jury, either by introducing topics calculated to inflame their minds, or by omitting any of the evidence or arguments urged on the part of the defendants, and considering also that he was not only addressing the Jury in the presence of the entire bar, and of all the most distinguished men who were engaged on the part of the traversers, but that he was himself only one out of four judges who were his co-equals, and had all the same right to address the Jury, and who were bound, if they considered that anything had been omitted which ought to be pressed on their attention, to have taken their part in the business, and to put those matters before the Jury. He had read the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice more than once, and he confessed that he had no hesitation in saying that he believed that there was nothing whatever objectionable in the statement of the Chief Justice, or in the expressions which he used, except, perhaps, that solitary one to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, and which he hardly thought worthy of an observation. He was sure that if hon. Members would take the trouble of reading that charge they would find the Chief Justice over and over again pressing on the attention of the Jury that the onus of proving the conspiracy lay on the Crown; that it ought not to be made out by mere presumptions, but that facts, and the undoubted inferences from those facts, were necessary to establish the criminality of the parties; and that one ground why he did not press on them the evidence for the traversers was because the obligation was on the Crown to prove the charge against them. They would find that he entreated the counsel for the traversers, if he omitted any of the evidence or documents which they considered important, to interrupt him, and that they occasionally interrupted him to ask him to state parts of the evidence which had been given. They would see how those interruptions were received and attended to, and how free from temper the conduct of the Chief Justice was throughout the charge; and they would then be forced to conclude that it was a most unjust and unfounded aspersion on the character of that eminent individual to attribute to him that he, in consequence of some political bias, was disposed to press unfairly against the traversers. It was said that garbled extracts were handed up to the Jury. But that was not the fact. In the course of the trial extracts from the documents read in evidence were handed up to the Chief Justice for the sake of convenience; at the close of the trial it was proposed to hand them up to the Jury; but on an objection being made, on the part of the traversers, that the parts relied on by the Crown were scored under, while those relied on by the traversers were not, none of them were left to the Jury. Was it not, therefore, unjust to attribute to the Lord Chief Justice any improper interference with regard to the mode in which he summed up the case or left it to the Jury, and to attempt to induce the people to believe that there had been some partiality in the mode in which the case had been conducted, and that this great trial had not been brought to a satisfactory conclusion? The question with regard to the challenge to the array was now brought before the highest tribunal of the Empire. [Mr. Wyse: Not as to the facts.] The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, for some of the facts were brought in a certain degree before that tribunal; but he admitted that one fact on which the hon. Gentleman chiefly relied was not brought before it, nor could it have been brought forward at any other time than on the original application to quash the panel at the early part of the proceedings. But the question which the House had now to decide was, whether there were any circumstances in the case which ought to induce them to believe that any good would be gained by an inquiry conducted by a Select Committee in the mode proposed by the hon. Gentleman. He was utterly at a loss to conceive what was the benefit which the right hon. Gentleman expected to result from such an inquiry. He thought that nothing had been brought forward to lead them to the conclusion that there had been any fraud whatever with regard to the missing list, about which so much had been said. If there had been any fraud, he agreed with his noble Friend that there was a particular course of law which might be brought into operation against the offending parties by action, indictment, or criminal information, at the suit of the parties aggrieved—but if there had been only an inadvertence there was no use in giving this House the trouble to inquire into the subject. He regretted the error which had taken place—but no hardship or inconvenience resulted from it to the parties. He was thoroughly convinced that the trial had been fairly and justly conducted and—they should forgive him for saying so—that the conclusion, whatever attempts might be made to abuse the public mind, would be considered by all well-judging men, and all lovers of their country, to be perfectly satisfactory. It was because he thought that all notion of fraud was excluded from the circumstances of this case, and because he was borne out in that view by the impartial and enlightened men who had to try this question, that he felt bound to resist the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman feeling as he did that if he were to yield to this application it would be an admission that there had been some practice or some fraud in the formation of the list, or some hardship, or some inconvenience to the traversers resulting from it. He was conscientiously of opinion, that nothing of that kind existed, and he therefore felt bound to resist the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to the utmost of his power.

Mr. Villiers Stuart

said, one or two of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations had caused him no little surprise. With regard to his observations on the Chief Justice's charge, it was a pity that the hon. Gentleman had not been in the House during the discussion of this matter at the beginning of the Session, because it so happened that very strong observations were made on that charge, and that not one word was said in its defence. He well recollected, that the only observation with respect to it was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which he put in the form of a question—"What prisoner who has been convicted is ever satisfied with the verdict?" It was no light thing to bring such charges; but the Government, when they were made, ought to have defended the charge, if they did not agree in the general condemnation. The hon. and learned Gentleman accused his right hon. Friend of not taking the right time for making this Motion, because, he said, a conspiracy was overshadowing the land. What had decided that a conspiracy was spreading over the land, but the verdict of the Jury? And if the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was not the time to discuss the question whether the Jury was formed fairly, it would seem as if the hon. Gentleman thought that any means ought to be taken to put down opponents, when he said that there was a conspiracy. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not look to the future. There was no one who was in his heart more against at the present state of things in Ireland than himself; but he would rather that they were going on as at that moment, than that there should be these unfortunate circumstances connected with the formation of the Jury List. The subject had been dealt with in far too technical a manner. He wanted to counteract the feeling that justice had not been administered, when the man in whom the greatest confidence was placed had been found guilty by a jury not formed according to law. Could any period be too late to try and restore confidence in the administration of the law? Nothing had so much tended to the ruin of Ireland as the want of that confidence? It was quite true that till a recent period, neither the Law nor the Judges were looked upon with respect, and juries received no confidence. It was the duty of the Government to watch over and try and restore that confidence. It could not be gained at once. It must take a considerable time. In 1829 they placed the Catholics and Protestants, so far as the law went, on a footing of equality; but there was yet something wanting to give confidence in the tribunals. With regard to the smaller tribunals, the Marquess of Wellesley got rid of a great evil, by establishing petty sessions, instead of a sitting in a private room. Much good too had been done by mingling Catholic with Protestant magistrates; but there was still much to effect. In 1825 Mr. O'Connell was examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, to inquire into the state of Ireland, and gave this evidence with respect to the higher tribunals:— Have you observed in the administration of justice in the Superior Courts any disposition towards undue partiality?—In particular instances I have, but the apprehension of partiality is more occasioned by the kind of instruments that are used to bring jury questions to trial, than in the superior judges themselves; the city of Dublin is particularly constituted in that respect, especially in later times. There has been a great deal of party spirit, and no persons can now be Sheriffs of Dublin, that do not give a very unequivocal pledge before their election, of taking a particular part in politics, hostile to the Roman Catholics, Those gentlemen have the summoning of all juries, and the formation of all grand juries, and whatever may be the result in individual cases, it leaves a general impression upon the minds of the Roman Catholics that their property, or in cases of criminal offences, their lives and liberties, are not secure. I know that that prevails to a very great extent, so that a Roman Catholic, the most cool and rational amongst them, and dispassionate as to parties, would rather submit to great wrongs than attend a trial in Dublin; and that, as I said before, originating with the species of persons who are sheriffs, and of the persons who are at the head of the Special Jury Lists, for they place at the head of the Special Jury Lists the high corporators. An Act of Parliament that was proposed in the lower House last Session, would tend certainly, if carried into effect, to do away a great deal of that evil, in my judgment. He believed that it was under the very Act, that was passed to remedy the old evil that the Jury in question was formed, which was now complained of, and he mentioned the point to show that under this very Act whether by fraud or accident, they had virtually returned to the old system, and that Mr. O'Connell was now suffering under that very old system of which he had pointed out the evils. If he had been tried by a jury from which every Catholic was struck off, he said that they were returning to the old state of things. He was not charging the Government with wishing for such a state, but he was not going beyond his duty by pointing out the effects which had occurred before, and which must occur again if the system were retained. No one could say that the best consequences had not followed from the non-challenging of Catholics on juries. There was nothing more untrue than that the Irish disliked justice, they were eminently fond of justice; if the law were just, and if it were justly administered, they would lay claim to the same title as the English of being honest and firm supporters of the law. He knew, indeed, that there were cases of crimes not brought to justice; but it too often happened that this arose from a conviction in the minds of the people that there were wrongs under which those persons suffered which entitled them to greater sympathy; but if the law were not asserted in Ireland as it ought to be, it arose from the fact that law and justice were too often opposed to each other. What evil could arise from granting the Committee asked for by his right hon. Friend? A petition had been presented, stating certain facts, alleging fraud against a party or parties whose names were not mentioned; surely nothing could be more fair than that they should prove them if they were true, if not the petition would fall to the ground. Hon. Gentlemen said that in that case nothing would be gained; but there would be this gain, that the inquiry and the failure would deprive those who complained of the grounds of their complaint. Would they leave things as they were? Would they allow it to go abroad that the House of Commons would take no notice of the fact that every Catholic had been struck off the Jury, and would take no step to remedy this? He could not express how strongly he felt on this subject—it would fling his country back for centuries. What would a person in this country expect if he were tried by a jury from which every Protestant were struck off? But no, the could not in England be put in the samy circumstances as they were in Ireland. There was not a Church question to agitate men's minds here. There was not the same interests of religious added to political differences. It was impossible that Mr. O'Connell could have a fair trial in Dublin, by an exclusively Protestant Jury: he had been at the head of a great party in Ireland, constantly attempting to pull down the present system, which others were as strongly supporting; the two parties then opposed looked on each other as the enemies of Ireland. Could any one make the Irish believe that in such a state of things Mr. O'Connell could have a fair trial from Protestants? The hon. Mem- ber for Dublin himself could not deny the strength and universality of the party feeling. He was far from saying that this particular jury did not attempt to do justice, but they must have been biassed on a particular trial. He said it was the duty of the House, seeing what would be the consequence of allowing any individual, still more any one endeared to the people, to suffer by the verdict of a jury, from which by accident or fraud every Catholic had been struck off, to enter upon the inquiry, and he gave the Motion of his right hon. Friend his cordial support.

Mr. Grogan

contended that no law had been infringed in the formation of the Jury List. He could see no use in granting the inquiry sought for by the Motion before the House. The Committee was moved for to obtain further evidence, but all the evidence which they could have upon the subject they already possessed in sworn affidavits. What more could be expected by going into Committee? The revision of the lists by the Recorder was a most arduous undertaking. He had some 5,000 names to go through, and was it extraordinary that some mistakes and omissions should occur? There was one circumstance, however, connected with this discussion which gave him great pain. Although they had not in direct terms charged a Protestant Jury with having committed injustice towards Catholics, yet hon. Gentlemen opposite all seemed to go upon the grounds that injustice had been done. He thought it would have been much better to have discussed the question upon its real merits, and not have thus indirectly charged a Protestant Jury with having committed injustice towards Catholic prisoners.

Mr. J. O'Brien

It cannot be denied that the object of the present Motion is to inculpate Her Majesty's Government in connection with these late trials, which have so intensely occupied the public mind in Ireland. I hold those trials to have been an unconstitutional attempt to suppress public opinion in that country, and to substitute the infliction of penal law, for the redress of grievances long and deeply felt. It is idle to suppose that this was a prosecution directed only against individuals, public interests were committed in the conflict, and the distinguished leader of the national party, was sustained and impelled by the concurring sympathies of the country. The people of Ireland, urged by a sense of wrong, met in deliberative councils, and in what has been not inaptly termed multitudinous assemblies, but in the one they disclaimed the protection of a dangerous and suspicious secresy, and in the other they were distinguished by the vigilant observance of the law; 'tis true a bold experiment was made to awaken the mind of England by the emphatic development of the feelings of Ireland, but when the fears or the wisdom of the Government forbade the continued demonstration of national sentiment, when the meeting at Clontarf was prohibited, they paid to your ungracious proclamation a prompt and unhesitating obedience, and thereby demonstrated the peaceful character of their constitutional agitation. This result should have satisfied the Government. They had achieved by their proclamation all they could have accomplished by their prosecution. The multitudinous meetings were abandoned, and the supremacy of the law was acknowledged; but in an evil hour they listened to the suggestions of a vindictive policy, they advanced unwisely on the submission of the people, and adopted the novel expedient of arraigning men for a conspiracy who had little in common but a legitimate community of end—the repeal or the modification of an obnoxious Act of Parliament. I am at a loss to understand, if the means adopted were legal, that there was ought in the object contemplated which warranted the denunciation of the Government. I am prohibited from so thinking, even by the example of some of the most distinguished Members of Her Majesty's present Government, who in their successive advocacy of the Emancipation Act, the Church Temporalities Act, the Reform Act, substantially modified and repealed the more important provisions of the Legislative Union. It is true, repeal in its popular interpretation seeks the right of domestic legislation, as the most direct and immediate road to the achievement of those many practical ends and legislative ameliorations which the condition of the country requires. Repeal is the comprehensive designation of the many wants of Ireland; and had they been, as they might have been, provided for by a wise Imperial Legislation, the popular passions might yet have slumbered, and the disturbed spirit of nationality would not have pervaded the land in its present formidable matu- rity. But do not ascribe to Mr. O'Connell the difficulties of your own creation; do not impute to him the alternative, which he had often deprecated, and which your impolicy has forced upon his adoption. Yet let me not unduly magnify Mr. O'Connell's influence, for I believe in regard to this question, which now so intensely occupies the public mind of Ireland, he has more given expression to, than created, the national sentiment, and could not, if he would, have resisted the national impulse; and you will fatally err in supposing that you will arrest the development of national feeling by the vindictive persecution of a man so remarkably possessed of the confidence and affections of the country. And what has there been in the character of his public life which justifies the Government in holding him forth as a fitting subject for penal denunciation? Has he not advocated all the great measures which you have ultimately, though in some cases tardily, adopted. Did he not organise the energies of Ireland, facilitating to the right hon. Baronet his yet remembered triumphs over the antipathies of creed and the prejudices of country? Had Mr. O'Connell not summoned to existence, and invested with political organization, powers antagonist to those by which intolerance and monopoly were upheld, could the right hon. Baronet, would he have achieved the Emancipation Act, and thus associated his name with that great measure of legislative wisdom? Nor was he a subordinate auxiliary in those constitutional conflicts in which a noble Lord and another right hon. Baronet distinguished themselves by the advocacy of popular rights, and giving legislative security to their existence by the provisions of the Reform Act; and with equal energy and consistent principle, he co-operated with you in securing to the people of the Empire the invaluable privilege of reformed municipal institutions. His advocacy of popular rights was unstained by sectarian selfishness; and in conjunction with you, by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, he secured to the Dissenter the equal privileges of the Constitution. It is true he urged to a legitimate maturity the principles you imperfectly developed, and gave expression to the discontent, of Ireland at your measures of incomplete redress—at the imperfect realization in her regard of those principles which you had announced. You proclaimed religious freedom, yet we continue the tributaries of a dominant Church; you declared the necessity of a thorough international incorporation, yet you placed us in a humiliating contrast by an inadequate representation and an abridged constituency; you acknowledged the necessity of municipal institutions, and you communicated the invaluable privilege to the more favoured portions of the Empire; to us, reluctantly and suspiciously, you conceded a stinted measure of corporate rights. Your entire legislation, as respects us, was marked by the offensive supremacy of country and of sect. Did you suppose that long oppression had extinguished the national pride? If we did not feel the legislative indignity, we should have deserved it. We remonstrated, but unavailingly, and we accepted without gratitude, what you gave us without grace. Ireland still complained of your abortive policy; we laboured under a chronic malady of discontent; the national energies were wasting under the slow fever of arguments unanswered, of hopes indefinitely postponed. The distinguished victim of your prosecution, by the resources of his powerful character, rallied the collapsed energies of the country. He gave intelligible expression to the feelings of associated millions. He has precipitated the crisis, and has matured that overbearing necessity so wisely anticipated and referred to by the right hon. Baronet. I will not suppose that you can view the present position of such a man with feelings of exultation. But I am not warranted in appealing to your sympathies; the national sentiment forbids it. We say that justice has not been done. We say that before you put Mr. O'Connell on his trial you should have ascertained if you could have given him an unprejudiced tribunal, and if the condition of the country, if these antagonist factions which a disastrous policy has created, prohibited your so doing, you should have paused and inquired if there was not something anomalous in that condition of things which thus poisoned justice in its source—practically annihilated the tribunals of your free constitution, and incapacitated people from the discharge of their first and most important functions. But as you did decide on appealing to the paralyzed tribunals of the country, we say that according to the spirit and analogous example of the constitution, as conceded to foreigners, you should have balanced the antipathies of party; you should not have tried the Catholic leader by an exclusively sectarian jury, by men committed in prejudgment against him. You should not have availed yourselves of perhaps an accident, perhaps a fraud (I allude to the dropped lists), to take from him his legal chance of escape from the combined power of arbitrary law and of a prejudging tribunal; above all, we say that you should not have been guilty of the almost increditable though legal absurdity of executing sentence while discussing its legality. Your verdict has corresponded with your wishes. Yet, what has been your achievement? The people of Ireland required no example to deter them from physical or lawless violence? Their obedience to your Clontarf proclamation protects them from the aspersion, but will your verdict abate the national and constitutional agitation now in action? Let the existing condition of the country—let the popular exchequer, overflowing with the contributions of an enthusiastic people, reply to your inquiry—above all, let the adhesion to the popular ranks of that class of men quiescent, but not indifferent, indisposed by temperament, and unprepared by habit for the collisions of public life, reply to your inquiry. And should you suppose that the verdict you have achieved, repugnant as it is to the national sense of justice, divested as it is of all moral influence, will extinguish the spirit of the country, you fatally miscalculate. I shall not here discuss the character or probable consequences of that great object which now so intensely occupies the popular mind of Ireland; adopt your alternative, be it impracticable in achievement, perilous in the attempt, or be it, if achieved, fraught with dissolution to your empire, you are morally responsible for the results, you who have driven to the last limits of the Constitution a long suffering and now exasperated people. It is in reason, and history ratifies the conclusion, that when the just demands of a people are withheld, other views and less legitimate aspirations spring from the denial, nor will those classes, less perhaps impassioned in feeling, though not less determined in sentiment, long give you the benefit of their political scruples in maintenance of a Constitution from whose benefits you exclude them. Each day of evil unredressed adds to the force of the national movement, and calls in aid those to whom the sympathies of religion, and of country, and the impulses of a contagious enthusiasm cannot long unavailingly appeal. And though strong in authority, and in all the accompaniments of established power, it may be well to calculate the antagonist forces—those mighty elements of nationality and religion, which are now fast developing themselves against you. Shall I call your attention to the remarkable demonstration about to take place; it is well deserving your serious reflection; it is not the act of the intemperate or interested politicians, it is not the hasty resolve of a precipitate enthusiasm. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, men mature in years, instructed by experience, venerable by their virtues, have appointed a day of solemn devotion, and at one and the same hour you will have 7,000,000 of an impassioned people proclaiming the afflictions of their country, and the injustice of their rulers. This is an unparalleled occurrence, and the Government which can neglect such an indication of national sentiment, is responsible for the results. Nor are the effects of your policy limited to the immediate sphere of your misgovernment, look to the unconcealed antipathies of America, avowedly created and impelled by that section of the population, rapidly increasing in numbers and in wealth, and who have brought with them to another hemisphere the bitter remembrance of their wrongs and of your injustice. Look to the President of that great republic, the constitutional organ of its opinions, un-disguisedly sanctioning that agitation which you have characterised as menacing the integrity of your empire; nor should you disregard what I may call the mere domestic influences of the alienation of Ireland. Shall I direct your attention to the commercial and manufacturing cities, to your very metropolis, crowded with a rapidly expanding population from that country, corroded by a sense of national injustice, hostile to your laws, and disaffected to your institutions, predisposed to receive, perhaps to communicate, that political poison—those dangerous doctrines, alike subversive of your social security and imperial greatness? Nor are the results of your policy even thus circumscribed. Look to your dominant church, that parent spring of all our distractions, tainting your fair fame, and arming against you the re- ligious sensibilities of three-fourths of the Christian world. No measures of superficial redress will meet the occasion; no palliatives will satisfy the public mind; if this be your course, it will but prolong the national distractions, and by inevitable progression end in the same consummation. Do not delude yourselves by looking forward to a Registration Bill. If you curtail the franchise, this is clearly no specific for national discontent. If you extend the franchise, what is our gain while your policy is anti-national, and while the liberal representatives of Ireland are overborne by British majorities? This will only the more conspicuously display our inefficacy in a British Senate. 'Tis true you have issued a land commission; and so far you are entitled to the acknowledgments of the country—for I will not suppose you will falsify the hopes you have thus so powerfully excited. The people of Ireland are confederated by a sense of wrong. You can dissolve the confederacy, not by State prosecutions, but by the abandonment of a policy not more opposed to the tranquillity of one country than to the ultimate safety of both. Shall I weary the attention of the House by the thrice-told tale of Irish grievances, in whose regard reason and argument have discharged their functions, leaving no alternative but to extract from expediency what has been refused to justice? Will you persevere in a policy thus demonstrated by its fruits, distracting a country, disorganizing an empire? Sir, I believe a crisis is at hand. The agitations of the national frame must terminate, and speedily, in dissolution or renovation, the latter I believe to be approaching, I infer it from many indications. I see the people of England rapidly abdicating their religious prejudices, I see a fusion of parties combining on other principles than the decaying antipathies of sect. I infer it from the more liberal announcements of the Conservative press. I especially infer it from the altered tone of the late debate on the Church Question. We are no longer told of inflexible compacts, of immutable arrangements, nor of the rights of Government to establish true religion, that palpable vindication of the bigot and the persecutor of every creed. That question is now based, and with high personal and official authority, on the intelligible principle of what is due to the collective welfare of a people. I trust that this ques- tion shall be, and soon, finally adjusted, even for the sake of the Protestant authority in Ireland, for what is the condition of the Protestant in that country? It is true you have given him a dominant Church; is the good worth the penalty which attends the possession? Is it worth the hostile mind of an offended and alienated people? Did the accidents of birth of education place me in the ranks of the Protestant gentry, I would call upon the Government to relieve me from an injurious preference, from a barren ascendancy, to restore to property its influence, to station its authority, to social and to personal virtues their legitimate claims on the respect and affections of an enthusiastic and devoted people. I trust that the principles announced in that debate, so undeniable in their wisdom, shall produce corresponding fruits, and that Her Majesty's Government shall, at no long interval, announce the adoption of an altered policy. I would call upon them to look to the condition of Ireland, to the resolved and excited spirit of the people, and to provide in time for the safety of the empire. They will, I trust, discard the unworthy suggestion that their concessions may be imputed to their fears. Wise and provident apprehension is the first duty of a Government; its salutary influence combining with yet loftier considerations achieved the Emancipation Act under the auspices of the right hon. Baroronet. Let equal wisdom and a kindred spirit now animate your policy. A great opportunity is profferred to your acceptance to extinguish agitation by redress, to anticipate revolution by reform, to tranquilize a people, to consolidate an empire. But if you will not summon a resolution befitting your position—if you will not wisely conciliate or finally redress—you owe it to your own character, and to the awakened jealousies of the people of England, whose constitutional privileges are equally involved, to assent to the present Motion, and ascertain how it was, whether by accident or by design, you tried and convicted the distinguished leader of the Catholic body, by the instrumentality of a Sectarian and suspected tribunal.

The House divided: Ayes 73; Noes 91.—Majority 18.

List of the AYES.
Archbold, R. Barnard, E. G.
Bannerman, A. Bellew, R. M.
Blake, M. Mitcalfe, H.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Morris, D.
Bowring, Dr. Napier, Sir C.
Brotherton, J. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Browne, R. D. O'Brien, J.
Browne, hon. W. O'Gonnell, M. J.
Buller, E. O'Conor Don
Busfeild, W. O'Ferral, R. M.
Carew, hon. R. S. Paget, Col.
Chapman, B. Palmerston, Visct.
Clive, E. B. Pechell, Capt.
Cobden, R. Philips, G. R.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R. Plumridge, Capt.
Collett, J. Power, J.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Rawdon, Col.
Denison, W. J. Russell, Lord E.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T. Seale, Sir J. H.
Duncan, G. Seymour, Lord
Duncannon, Visct. Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Ebrington, Visct. Smith, B.
Esmonde, Sir T. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Evans, W. Somers, J. P.
Ferguson, Col. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Forster, M. Stock, Mr. Serj.
Gore, hon. R. Strutt, E.
Hastie, A. Tancred, H. W.
Hawes, B. Thornely, T.
Heathcote, J. Towneley, J.
Hill, Lord M. Warburton, H.
Horsman, E. Wawn, J. T.
Howard, P. H. White, H.
Hutt, W. Williams, W.
Langston, J. H. Yorke, H. R.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. TELLERS.
Macnamara, Major Wyse, T.
Marshall, W. Stuart, V.
List of the NOES.
Ackers, J. Eliot, Lord
Acland, Sir T. D. Entwisle, W.
Adderly, C. B. Escott, B.
Arkwright, G. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bailey, J. Fellowes, E.
Bailey, J., jun. Flower, Sir J.
Bailey, Col. Follett, Sir W. W.
Baring, hon. W. B. Forbes, W.
Bateson, T. Fuller, A. E.
Bentinck, Lord G. Gladstone, Capt.
Blackstone, W. S. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Bodkin, W. H. Gore, M.
Borthwick, P. Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Bowles, Adm. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Brisco, M. Grogan, E.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Hale, R. B.
Bruges, W. H. L. Hamilton, Lord C.
Buck, L. W. Harris, hon. Capt.
Buckley, E. Hayes, Sir E.
Bunbury, T. Henley, J. W.
Cardwell, E. Herbert, hn. S.
Chetwode, Sir J. Hinde, J. H.
Christopher, R. A. Hogg, J. W.
Clerk, Sir G. Hope, hon. C.
Cochrane, A. Hotham, Lord
Cole, hn. H. A. Hussey, A.
Darby, G. Hussey, T.
Dickinson, F. H. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Douglas, J. D. S. Jones, Capt.
Knatchbull,rt.hn.Sir E. Shirley, E. J.
Knight, H. G. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Knight, F. W. Smyth, Sir H.
Lincoln, Earl of Somerset, Lord G.
Lockhart, W. Stanley, Lord
Lygon, hon. Gen. Sutton, hon. H. M.
McGeachy, F. A. Taylor, E.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Tennent, J. E.
Morgan, O. Thesiger, Sir F.
Neeld, J. Thompson, Ald.
Norreys, Lord Trollope, Sir J.
Palmer, R. Vernon, G. H.
Patten, J. W. Vesey, hon. T.
Peel, rt. hn. Sir R. Waddington, H. S.
Peel, J.
Plumptre, J. P. TELLERS.
Praed, W. T. Young, J.
Rashleigh, W. Pringle, T.
Round, J.