Lords Sitting of 22 April 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Indemnity; Double-Costs: South Australia.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Normanby, from Hackney, Manchester, Birmingham, and other places, for the Drainage Bill; and from Birmingham, for the Jews Declaration Bill.—By the Marquess of Westmeath, and the Marquess of Lansdowne, from the Presbyteries of Athlone, Belfast, and other places, for Non-Intrusion.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from the Ratepayers of Salop, for the Removal of the Tolls on the Bridges.

CRIMES (IRELAND)—EXPLANATION.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that seeing the noble Marquess, the Secretary for the Home Department, in his place, he begged leave to trespass for a few moments on their Lordships' attention, with reference to a matter of a personal nature. It had always been the habit of their Lordships' House, when any Member of it was labouring under an unjust imputation, to allow the individual thus situated to take the earliest opportunity of clearing himself from the charge. Therefore it was, that he felt it necessary to come forward on this occasion. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that previous to the recess, he had made a motion in that House, relative to the criminal calendar at the last Lent assizes for the King's County. On that occasion, the noble Marquess thought proper, acting on
964
the information which had reached him, to give a very strong contradiction to certain statements, which he (the Earl of Charleville), had made to their Lordships. The noble Marquess thought it to be his duty to say:—
"That he (the Earl of Charleville) had not taken those pains to inform himself on the subject which he had presumed to bring under their Lordships' consideration, which he ought to have done."
And the noble Marquess further stated:
" That if he (the Earl of Charleville) had so inquired, he would have found, that Mr. Biddulph was perfectly satisfied with the jury which had been empannelled to try the persons charged with having attempted to murder him."
The noble Marquess said, that Mr. Biddulph had not only expressed his satisfaction, but declared his entire confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the jury, that were empannelled on that occasion. The noble Marquess had then alluded to the trial of Hughes at Armagh, and of Gray, at Monaghan, and stated, that with reference to the empannelling of the jury, the same course was adopted in both these cases; and that the next of kin, had on their trial, expressed their satisfaction and confidence in the juries so empannelled. He recollected perfectly well that the noble Marquess said on that occasion, that:—
" The noble Earl had, in making his statements, left out of view the declaration of Mr. Biddulph himself, that the panel was a fair and impartial one, and that the Solicitor-general concurred in that opinion, observing, that a more impartial jury could not have been sworn. Mr. Biddulph (the noble Marquess continued) observed, that if fifty or sixty names had been struck off the panel, enough would have still remained to constitute a fair and impartial jury; and he was perfectly satisfied, that the jury would give a verdict according to the evidence."
It was not for him to conjecture how this information had reached the noble Marquess; but, in consequence of that statement, Mr. Biddulph, whom he did not know until the attempt was made on his life, had written to him on the subject. Mr. Biddulph was, he believed, considered a Conservative in politics; but, whatever his political opinions were, he was so little of a partisan, that he had voted at the last election for Fitzsimon and Westenra, so that it was clear, that he was by no means violent in his politics.

965
That gentleman, considering, that a very unfair attack had been made on him (the Earl of Charleville), had thought proper to address a letter to him, which he should now read. The noble Earl then read the letter, in which Mr. Biddulph said:—
" That he had read with much attention the statement of the noble Earl, and the answer of the Marquess of Normanby, and the latter was by no means correct, let it emanate from what quarter it might. He had objected to a person on the jury; but he was told, that the ground of his objection was not substantial, because he only acted on rumour, and not on positive knowledge. He had never expressed an opinion, that the jury was a fair and impartial one; for he felt, that they would never agree; but he said, that a better jury could not be formed out of the persons who remained, those whom he considered fair and impartial being exhausted, thus leaving him without an alternative."
He had also received a letter from Mr. Quin, in which it was stated, that the law officer of the Grown had refused to object to a juror, of the name of Collins, (who was a man of very bad character) upon the trial of certain persons, accused of the murder of a man named Powell, who was in the employ of Mr. Quin, at the time of the murder. The writer stated:—
" That neither he, nor the next of kin of the deceased, had approved of the jury empanelled on that occasion."
He had also received a communication from Mr. Parker, who was present at the trial of Gray, at the Monaghan assizes, who stated:—
" That the challenges made by the Crown on that occasion were far more extensive than those made by the Crown, on the trial of Hughes, at Armagh. In the former case, many persons, who were not publicans, were challenged."
The writer concluded by saying:—
" We are obliged to you, for exposing the manner in which juries are formed."
The noble Marquess, in the course of his reply, had charged him with having employed a person of most infamous character to collect information on the occasion of the murder of Lord Norbury. In answer to that, he would say, that he was informed by Mr. Macdonald, to whom he had applied on the subject, that Sergeant Goulding, the individual alluded to In the noble Marquess, had been seventeen years in the service. If, therefore, any
966
charge was made, with respect to his being an improper person to serve in the constabulary force, it must apply to those who appointed him to the situation, and not to him, who knew nothing of the character of the man, when he employed him. His reason for so employing him, was because he resided in the district, and was well acquainted with it. Captain Crawford, to whom he had written relative to the man, stated in answer:—
" That, during his service of seventeen years Goulding had been promoted from one step to another, and this he could say, that while he was connected with the constabulary force in the King's County, he considered the conduct of Goulding to be good, and that he performed his functions satisfactorily."
Having thus vindicated himself from the charge of the noble Marquess by stating these facts, he would leave it to the noble Marquess to offer any explanation which he might think necessary.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad nothing to add to his former explanation on this subject He had not stated anything upon vague information, but had actually read the words of Mr. Moore, the Solictor-general, and of Mr. Dale, the Crown-Solicitor, with regard to the empannelling of the jury. In their statements there was not the slightest allusion to what was subsequently brought forward by the noble Earl. He would have brought down the letters of those gentlemen if the noble Earl had given him notice that he intended again to introduce the subject; but he could state, from his own recollection, that they were of opinion that the panel was perfectly correct in Mr. Biddulph's case. The letters contained no statement that the respectable part of the panel had been exhausted, and the law officers declared that at the time the parties, so far as they knew, gave to the jury their most unqualified approbation. One of them was challenged by Mr. Biddulph, merely because he did not like the individual; but he gave no reason for the challenge. With respect to what was said by Mr. Parker it should be observed that he did not state that the same number of challenges was made at Armagh and at Monaghan. It was not in his power to make such a statement. But Mr. Hamilton, the law officer of the Crown, stated that the same system was pursued in each instance. He had admitted distinctly, at the time, that there were more challenges at Monaghan

967
than at Armagh. At Armagh the challenges were only two or three, while at Monaghan they were nine or ten. With respect to Goulding, he had not said that at the time of the murder of Lord Norbury the noble Earl who employed the man to seek for information knew that he was a bad character. His observation was, that the noble Earl having, at the time, employed a person who afterwards turned out to be an in famous character, it was somewhat too much for the noble Earl to found a charge against the Government on statements derived from such a source.
The Earl of Charleville.—The noble Marquess accused me of having knowingly employed a man of bad character.
The Marquess of Normanbyassurred the House that he did not intend to convey any such charge. The man was found to be a perjurer, and otherwise a bad character, and he thought, when the noble Earl was acquainted with the fact, it ought to have made him a little distrustful of information coining from such a suspicious quarter.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that he was one of the few who had sat through the debate which took place before the holidays. He then thought that the statement of his noble Friend was a very able and a very dispassionate one, and also that the reply to it by the noble Marquess was very satisfactory. But that reply was entirely founded on the statements which it contained, and if those statements were shown to be inaccurate, the reply would of course lack all its value and its force. Now, these statements had been seriously impugned by persons whose knowledge on the subject could not be doubted—nay, had been plainly and directly contradicted, and it was the bounden duty of the noble Marquess to establish the accuracy of his own account and to overturn the facts as stated in the letter read to their Lordships that evening. This he had not yet done; and, in fact, the speech attempting to do so, which they had just heard, was, in his opinion, very unsatisfactory. The charge brought against the Government was a serious one—of having laid down a system with regard to the administration of justice, from which, under peculiar circumstances, and in a case where political prejudice was supposed to be the motive of thei conduct, they had entirely deviated. It was the duty of the noble Marquess to give every information in his power, and
968
to inform the House whether the reports of the law officers were accurate, or whether they had given a false account of their conduct to the Executive Government. The answer of the noble Marquess to the charges brought forward by his noble Friend had been, he had thought at the time, quite satisfactory; but now those statements contained in that answer were disputed, on which its whole value depended, his reply was quite the contrary.
The Marquess of Westmeathobserved, that his noble Friend had only done his duty in bringing forward this statement, although the strongest imputation of motives had been indulged against him. It would be well worth the Prime Minister's while, if his subordinates were ignorant of the true state of Ireland, and the real danger incurred by the gentlemen who lived in that country, to reconsider those principles which the noble M'arquess had so triumphantly asserted ought to guide her Majesty's Government in Ireland. For what, he would ask, was the privilege of challenging jurors given to the Crown? Was it that, by suspending it on particular occasions, they might administer to the appetite for a low and vulgar popularity. The conduct of the officers of the Crown was calculated to sacrifice the lives of those gentlemen, who, with himself and his noble Friend, had the moral courage to uphold the institutions of the country. His noble Friend was not a pensioner upon the public, nor a political adventurer, but a gentleman of ample fortune who had a good house to receive his friends in, and had the good sense to live in it. Though his noble Friend had merely called their Lordships' attention to an extraordinary deviation from the ordinary course with regard to challenges, he had been most unjustly charged with interfering with the due administration of justice.
The Earl of Charleville, in reply, stated that which he had before mentioned to their Lordships, that Goulding had never given him any information. With regard to his character, the only charge against him was, that he had been flogged in the army twenty-seven years ago, but since that time he had served for seven years in the constabulary, and had retired at his own request. The only way in which he had employed him was to gain information respecting the murder of Lord Norbury, and he had done so because he alone could efficiently perform that duty.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he should certainly make inquiries as to the correctness of the reports from which he had gained his information respecting the cases of Biddulph and Grey, and with regard to Goulding, he had called him a person of infamous character, not because he had been flogged in the army twenty-four years ago, but in consequence of conduct which he had pursued long subsequent to that period. In the absence of precise information he would not admit that there was any difference between the modes of challenging jurors in the King's county, in Armagh, and Monaghan. He knew that they were the same in the two latter, and he had every reason to believe that it was the same in all three.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that he was at direct issue with the noble Marquess upon these two points. The noble Marquess admitted, that in Armagh none were set aside by the Crown except publicans, while in Monaghan there were others. Mr. O'Loghlen's instructions were, that without cause none but publicans should be set aside. His statement was, that it had been so in Armagh, but that in Monagban others besides publicans had been ordered to stand aside, and that the rule had also been violated in the King's county.
The Marquess of Normanbycontended that the plan laid down for the guidance of the Crown solicitor's conduct was the same in all cases, and that he would have challenged the same persons in any other county, for the same cause, if it existed.
Subject dropped.

BIRMINGHAM RIOTS.
The Earl of Warwickpresented a petition from Atherstone, in the county of Warwick, praying that the hundred in which it was placed might not be assessed to make good the damages done at the riots at Birmingham in the year 1839. The noble Earl stated, that he had before presented a similar petition, and that he thought the case was one of peculiar hardship. Atherstone, which was thirty miles from Birmingham, received no advantage whatever from that town, and, therefore, he thought it was most unjust that it should be assessed in the way which was proposed. He trusted that the noble Marquess opposite would give the subject his best consideration.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he
970
had seen a deputation from the county of Warwick on the subject some lime ago, and he was prepared to admit, that the case was one of some hardship; but as the law was general it was very difficult to apply a particular remedy in this case. He could only assure the noble Earl that he would give the subject the best consideration.
Adjourned.